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

Re: xinetd is a viable inet-superserver

On 28-Nov-07, 13:01 (CST), Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> wrote: 
> Steve Greenland schrieb:
> > On 28-Nov-07, 05:25 (CST), Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> wrote: 
> >> Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
> >>>   wrong. providing inet-superserver means that you are able to perform
> >>> what any implementation of inetd(8) does, namely, reading
> >>> /etc/inetd.conf, and _then_ possibly have extended features on its own.
> >>>
> >> I don't think this reasoning is correct. Take the existing
> >> implementations of system-log-daemon/linux-kernel-log-daemon, like
> >> rsyslog, syslog-ng or metalog. All use a different config file than
> >> /etc/syslog.conf.
> > 
> > The difference is that other packages don't manipulate log file
> > configuration. 
> > 
> Well, packages shouldn't manipulate the inetd.conf file directly anyway
> but use the update-inetd interface.

I wasn't sufficiently clear. The various -log-daemon packages don't
provide *any* way other packages to manipulate the configuration, nor
do any packages (to my knowledge/experious) attempt to change the log
configuration. Therefore, the fact that the various -log-daemons use
different config files is irrelevant to the inet-superserver discussion.

As with many virtual packages, the inet-superserver is under-specified.
Yes, you should use update-inetd, but since that is only run
on package installation/upgrade, it doesn't do any good when
changing to a different inetd. I believe that the general consensus
would be that the best/safest way to manage these things is the
individual-file-per-package model, rather than tools that manipulate a
big flat file. But that would be a big change. Letting xinetd support
/etc/inetd.conf seems like the smallest disruption.


Steve Greenland
    The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
    system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
    world.       -- seen on the net

Reply to: