Re: inetd's status in Debian
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 08:12:56AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ke, 2009-03-11 kello 00:00 +0000, Roger Leigh kirjoitti:
> > Additionally, not all inetds support
> > IPv6, so adding these lines will break some inetds.
> Should we consider lack of IPv6 support as a bug?
> Ah yes, it's been a release goal since etch.
Yes, we absolutely should.
I did try to push this for etch:
But didn't have much success persuading people.
update-inetd is a horror. We should just dump it.
I did point out back then it was badly broken, but my proposal
to fix it was not taken up.
The fact that update-inetd directly updates inetd.conf and inetd.conf
can also be edited by users means that you can actually get a
screwed up inetd.conf just by editing and
installing/upgrading/removing a package in the "wrong" order.
update-inetd is not idempotent, and is not clever enough to not
screw up inetd.conf in certain circumstances.
I did propose we switch to inetd-using packages providing a
config file fragment in e.g. /etc/inetd.d, and having update-inetd
simply regenerate inetd.conf from these pieces (and it would
be trivial for it to preserve user edits with this mechanism),
and it would also be idempotent. It has the benefits of simplicity
and robustness, since it doesn't require calling a postinst script
to run update-inetd with a specific (and limited) set of options.
The current approach relies of update-inetd being hugely complex,
when it really doesn't need to be.
If we regard IPv6 support as a requirement, it would be great if all
of the inetds *not* supporting IPv6 could be removed from the
archive. Unless things have changed, this includes micro-inetd and
superd. rlinetd does have support, but can't directly replace
inetd, so can't be considered as a useful alternative.
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.