Re: stupid dependencies on update-inetd
md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> 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'm not at all surprised if there's some problem with the idea of having
inet-superservers that provide their own update-inetd Providing and
Conflicting with update-inetd, but if someone could explain the problem to
me, I'd really appreciate it. I'd learn more about how these things work
(and virtual packages is an area where my understanding is a bit weak).
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>