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

Re: inetd's status in Debian



On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 06:39:23AM +0000, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.

That's probably because of my broken english because what luk and you
said was what I proposed: demote inetd to extra/optionnal instead of
standard. It could make space on the CDs to more useful stuff e.g.
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpZjkvKPKfEn.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: