Re: Finger daemons in Debian should use a virtual package
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:47:45PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:43:51AM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> >
> > no, it's cfingerd that it broken - it happily removes entries, not noticing
> > if they were made by cfingerd or anything else (at least did when I was
> > packaging efingerd, a long time ago)
> > Or is this preferrable behaviour?
>
> That doesn't seem to correspond to what's in cfingerd's prerm. Although
> it is buggy in that it shouldn't enable itself if there's already a finger
> service there.
it was some time ago....
however, try this:
start up with fingerd.
install cfingerd - it will disable in.fingerd entry and enable itself
remove fingerd - no change to /etc/inetd.conf, since in.fingerd was already
commented out
remove cfingerd - it returns in.fingerd entry to inetd.conf - but there is
not in.fingerd anymore - oops
it does not remove itself from /etc/inetd.conf, just
comments out
install fingerd - it sees commented out cfingerd entry, and enables it -
the result is two entries for finger service, one
from fingerd, one from cfingerd. Oops.
at this point, puzzled user tries yet another finger daemon, which makes
things even worse, unless there is a manual intervention in /etc/inetd.conf
the point is, unless there is some hairy and complicated testing in
(pre|post)(inst|rm), the best solution is to make all finger daemons
conflict with each other. At least until there is some other way of dealing
with /etc/inetd.conf than update-inetd (e.g. debconf query).
And there is not much advantage in having more finger daemons installed
simultaneously anyway.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabik http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
Reply to: