On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 05:45:31PM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote: > A legitimate question is whether the xinetd configuration format is a good > format. Are there, or will there be, even more "extended" inetd:s?
apt-cache search shows at least:
inetutils-inetd - Internet super server
micro-inetd - simple network service spawner
openbsd-inetd - The OpenBSD Internet Superserver
rinetd - Internet TCP redirection server
rlinetd - gruesomely over-featured inetd replacement
superd - Single-port inetd with pre-forking, suited for high-speed servers
xinetd - replacement for inetd with many enhancements
only 3 of them provides inet-superserver:
$ grep-dctrl -s Package -FProvides inet-superserver
/var/lib/apt/lists/mad_debian_dists_sid_main_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: inetutils-inetd
Package: openbsd-inetd
Package: rlinetd
I believe inetutils-inetd and openbsd-inetd are drop-in replacements
for the usual simple inetd program. rlinetd and xinetd have quite more
extensive features sets, and very different configuration file syntaxes.
Though, rlinetd is completely abandonned for years (last release in
'99) and has very few installs, whereas xinetd has many users, and if
not actively maintained, is more recent. I'd also say that xinetd
supersedes rlinetd features afaict.
IMHO the problem is easy to solve, I'd go this way: Have a registry in
/etc/ with a simple syntax (like ini-style), that would be a superset of
all the features in all supported superservers. Local administrators
would have to edit those files to make their local changes. Then every
superserver would have to write tools to generate their config file from
the registry. This config file would only be a runtime thing that the
admin should not edit.
The admin should also be able to add configurations for this or this
superserver in its native format if he wants to. The superserver would
obviously have to merge those configurations, and shout if the registry
and the local files try to put a service on the same port (I don't think
it's wise to have any of them to automatically override the other).
I don't think that writing the tool to deal with the configuration
registry is very hard, the most difficult thing is to read
xinetd.conf(5), inetd.conf(5) and come up with a decent amount of
possible configurations.
The downside of this proposal is that every package using a super
server would have to be updated, but OTOH that is not a big number of
packages:
$ grep-dctrl -s Package -FDepends netkit-inetd -o -FDepends inet-superserver
-o -FDepends update-inetd \
/var/lib/apt/lists/mad_debian_dists_sid_main_binary-amd64_Packages | wc
-l
51
Also note that this would ease the integration of things like upstart
that (I'm told) may have inetd-like services at some point. Not that I
really care, but it seems to be sexy those days, so ...
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpkQNIuDff8K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
