On Mon, 2003-05-19 at 21:11, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:34:39PM +0200, Sami Dalouche wrote: > > oh, just another thing I think of. nothing to do with the build system, > > but why doesn't debian use decent default dependencies ? For example, > > why isn't devfs part of the base system, or why isn't xinetd the default > > (over inetd) ? > > Well, it depends how you look at it. If I'm understanding what I'm > hearing correctly, for example, there's a considerable subset of kernel > people who don't like devfs' implementation and are ripping it out and > replacing it with what they think is rather better. devfs as default > seems a bit premature in the meantime. > > On xinetd, nobody's yet come up with an update-inetd implementation for > xinetd, which is required before it could be the default. > > Cheers, > > -- > Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk] Adding to that, xinetd conversion routines proclaim that xinetd doesn't handle rpc well (although when I have hand-converted and added the entries, they seem okay so far.) -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part