Bug#541872: debian-policy: identical notation for disabled-by-user and auto-generated entries in /etc/inetd.conf
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:08:40AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > The next bit would be writing the update-inetd replacement (which
> > > could just be part of the existing update-inetd, used when called
> > > with no arguments, and/or run on every invocation). If called with
> > > arguments, it will work as usual; the old code would be removed
> > > after the transition is done so it just does nothing, or emits
> > > a warning.
> > I'd prefer something more explicit: maintain update-inetd as is, and add
> > update-inetd-ng. (Also, because I'd rather write the new functionality in
> > python. I like perl but I'm more confident with python).
> I'm not sure if update-inetd is still pulled into base installs, but
> it may well drag in python into default installs, which will bloat
> its size somewhat. For this reason, I would prefer to stick with
> perl, but it's your choice.
python is part of the standard system nowadays, whereas update-inetd is
Priority: optional. I don't think the python dependency should be a
problem.
I do object to "ng" appearing anywhere in the name of this tool, though.
The name of the tool is codified in the Debian Policy, and there are
numerous packages that depend on the package and tool - reimplementation or
not, the next version should use the same name.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: