Re: inetd's status in Debian
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 07:31:35AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> 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
> optional/extra?
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I read this as a proposal to make /use/ of
inetd optional for the packages that currently depend on it.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: