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

Re: stupid dependencies on update-inetd

On Aug 01, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:

> > 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?
So far this case has not been handled automatically and I do not think
it is worth supporting because it would require creating stand-alone
update-inetd packages for each kind of inetd.
I also do not think it is a very /useful/ feature since I cannot see a
big difference between editing /etc/inetd.conf to uncomment a line and
editing /etc/inetd.conf to paste a line from README.Debian.

> > > 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.
As usual, do not call update-inetd then.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: