Re: inetd.d proposal

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>]

Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> 
> Previously Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo wrote:
> > <service_name> <sock_type> <proto> <flags> <user> <server_path> <args>
> 
> This is extremely inflexible, and won't allow you to take advantage of
> extra features of inetd-replacements such as xinetd and g2s but limits
> you to the inetd feature-set.
> 
> Wichert.
> 

Agreed.  This is another reason for having a post-install script: the
post-install script could coax the output into the appropriate form for
your particular flavour of inetd.  Things not supported by your inetd
such as respawn limits would simply get dropped.

	-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt