Re: stupid dependencies on update-inetd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 30, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus@Ethgen.de> wrote:
> Hmmm, Wrong in my opinion. If xinetd would have its own update-inetd and
> software is installed in xinetd and $ADMIN decides to switch back to
> traditional inetd the configuration is inconsistent. Also the way
> around.
Not if done right. Please read the whole thread, at least.
> It might be a better way to have a lintian warning if a package has a
> update-inetd call and no xinetd config or vis versa. Note that xinetd do
Pure idiocy. The whole point of update-inetd is to not have to
distribuite configurations for every inetd flavour.
- --
ciao,
Marco
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGrczRFGfw2OHuP7ERAkWMAJ4hsGGWlgrZ9XJ9imv50fj4S2aLogCcDTKF
6eEZXof8WwSyXO8/FPg7Mcc=
=e5UW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: