Re: Ferenc Wágner 2016-06-21 <87eg7q2s9s....@lant.ki.iif.hu> > Christoph Berg <m...@debian.org> writes: > > > Re: Dhionel Díaz 2016-06-21 > > <0c44f8f5-4d46-60e7-2bc3-d16956869...@cenditel.gob.ve> > > > >>> What about depending on inetd | systemd-sysv and invoking update-inetd > >>> only if systemd is not running? > > > > Doesn't that fail if the system is switched to/from systemd after the > > package was already installed? > > Sure it does. But if you do both, one (probably inetd, coming later) > will fail to bind if systemd manages the socket and also starts inetd.
That's why I keep saying we shouldn't try to hack it up unless there's a sane solution. I'd really just keep it as it is now. > Hmm, maybe you could have the csync2.socket conflict with inet.service > to avoid this failure mode... That would serve csync2 via inetd instead > of systemd, which is inefficient, but maybe acceptable. I don't see why that would be inefficient, both will fork a new process for every connection. Christoph
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
