Re: RFC: update-inetd migration to dpkp-triggers
tag 8927 + wontfix
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:30:25PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote [edited]:
> On Sep 04, Serafeim Zanikolas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > * abolish /etc/inetd.conf and /etc/xinetd.d/ and instead auto-generate
> This is unacceptable, and I say this as the openbsd-inetd maintainer
> (which is another reason why you should have discussed this first with
> the other maintainers involved).
> /etc/inetd.conf is a well known UNIX interface and it must continue to
> be supported, at least for locally-configured services.
Actually, my initial goal was to just cleanup update-inetd (which I'm doing
anyway), but at some point I bought into the idea of a clean rewrite. It
helped that ``rewrite'' is plastered all over update-inetd's bug reports,
including from you. But anyway that's no excuse for changing the traditional
way of making changes to inetd, and indeed not consulting beforehand with you
and Pierre Habouzit.
> And do we really need all the complexity to support xinetd, which is
> installed by 3.8% of the users?
AFAICS we can't support transparent switching between inetd and xinetd, while
we keep the traditional configuration files as the authoritative ones. Since
the latter is more important, I tag #8927 wontfix. I'll happily untag it when
someone comes along with a plan that satisfies everyone (but I won't hold my
> >  40: the number of update-inetd's rdeps in main/unstable, excluding
> > ``Provides: inet-superserver'' packages
> Feel free to file bugs.
I'll instead go the (recommended by devref) lintian way.
debtags-organised WNPP bugs: http://members.hellug.gr/serzan/wnpp