Re: inetd's status in Debian
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> I'm wondering if making super servers become optionnal wouldn't be a worthy
>> goal for squeeze.
> Why? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Having a superserver installed isn't
> broken. Why should every daemon have to implement connection handling when
> they can offload that to the inetd?
> Demoting inetd from standard to optional seems to me like a reasonable
> release goal; that doesn't require patching lots of upstream code that works
> just fine the way it is already. In fact, AFAICS it doesn't require
> patching any of our packages.
Right, isn't that the proposal: demote inetd and update-inetd to
Btw, lots of packages are depending on update-inetd while it's
guaranteed to be available when depending on inet-superserver.