Bug#541872: debian-policy: identical notation for disabled-by-user and auto-generated entries in /etc/inetd.conf
Serafeim Zanikolas <serzan@hellug.gr> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:46:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> And then xinetd wouldn't have to go through update-inetd and could just
>> use the fragments directly, which would resolve that integration
>> problem in what I think is a cleaner way.
> In the long run, we might have to extend the vocabulary of xinetd
> fragments to support features that will be unique to a brand new
> inetd. To deal with that scenario seamlessly, we're best passing xinetd
> fragments through the conf translator anyway, even though it won't have
> to translate/strip anything until that shiny brand new inetd comes
> along.
Yeah, that's probably a reasonable point.
I do think starting with the xinetd syntax for the fragment syntax would
be nice. A lot of upstreams already provide xinetd configuration
fragments.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: