Re: stupid dependencies on update-inetd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Am Mo den 30. Jul 2007 um 13:34 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> > 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.
Id red the complete tree from the begin and there was nothing about
that.
If there was a old tree about inetd in the past please provide a link as
I do not know when it was.
> > 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.
Maybe idiocy. But it IS a solution which work. Please also see the
second choice I gave.
In any case and to come to the begin again, the correct dependency would
be:
Depends: update-inetd
Suggest: inet-superserver
Gruß
Klaus
- --
Klaus Ethgen http://www.ethgen.de/
pub 2048R/D1A4EDE5 2000-02-26 Klaus Ethgen <Klaus@Ethgen.de>
Fingerprint: D7 67 71 C4 99 A6 D4 FE EA 40 30 57 3C 88 26 2B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBRq3tmp+OKpjRpO3lAQIZSwgAiEdck3ukzcH2e1ySzTaokhbGTgA1Q0KV
EcllyHiC7t5AjKJb9hFHAXn8aaXuIwKPb76pu7mG2kKmHOQ/ojqK78ghcBaSspVE
UmdvwwnG8OupYuseXbu8Ci2q9IysNmD1jWWr8e/EbKmjupFqJJDcARIqc6P5u7Xx
yWWdGBH35WTmdIDRcB6ZIvuB6CrkyO4akZ9WBdAuDY+Aks20KQeSyOd159WQUpZA
PR0BcBOT6p6MZ+T6IHu/ebyvqXzTdaD0ztHvm5UDKUZBw5iqLpqD1h5s3RL93htD
m3HaYO8BVkjKWTdI05fxEF2W4hei5SCg9FpoTVUQ8VECauKK7LfJgQ==
=cMmn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: