Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> I'm wondering if making super servers become optionnal wouldn't be a worthy >> goal for squeeze. > > Why? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Having a superserver installed isn't > broken. Why should every daemon have to implement connection handling when > they can offload that to the inetd? > > Demoting inetd from standard to optional seems to me like a reasonable > release goal; that doesn't require patching lots of upstream code that works > just fine the way it is already. In fact, AFAICS it doesn't require > patching any of our packages. Right, isn't that the proposal: demote inetd and update-inetd to optional/extra? Btw, lots of packages are depending on update-inetd while it's guaranteed to be available when depending on inet-superserver. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
