Re: best practice for updating inetd.conf with a user-chosen port?
Eric Cooper <email@example.com> writes:
> Regarding the other thread in -devel about the future of inetd: in my
> case I found it very sensible to jettison all the code for opening
> sockets, binding ports, handling IPv6, handling tcp-wrappers,
> daemonizing processes, etc. and punt it to inetd. Since apt clients
> keep their connections open for many multiple, the performance hit is
Yeah, I disagree with the idea that inetd is a bad choice for new
programs. Writing a standalone daemon requires a fair bit of networking
knowledge and work, particularly if you also want to support IPv6, and
inetd can already do all that for you.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>