[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: stupid dependencies on update-inetd

On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:42:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > The rationale for samba depending on update-inetd was that samba does *not*
> > depend on the availability of an inet superserver; it only depends on the
> > availability of the update-inetd interface, in order for its maintainer
> > scripts to run correctly.
> Again, the update-inetd interface is formally provided by
> inet-superserver and not by update-inetd.

So there's no allowance for a package that wants to interface with inetd if
it's installed, but doesn't depend on inetd being installed?

> > But I would still like input on the use of this dependency for samba; I
> > rather expect we would get complaints if samba depended on inet-superserver
> > when it doesn't use it in the default configuration.
> Do not depend on the presence of /usr/sbin/update-inetd then.

How should idempotent maintainer scripts that call update-inetd work
otherwise?  I'd rather not leave cruft around in /etc/inetd.conf as a
consequence of inet-superserver not being installed at the right moment.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: