tag 8927 + wontfix thanks On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:30:25PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote [edited]: > On Sep 04, Serafeim Zanikolas <ser...@hellug.gr> wrote: > > * abolish /etc/inetd.conf and /etc/xinetd.d/ and instead auto-generate > This is unacceptable, and I say this as the openbsd-inetd maintainer > (which is another reason why you should have discussed this first with > the other maintainers involved). > /etc/inetd.conf is a well known UNIX interface and it must continue to > be supported, at least for locally-configured services.
Actually, my initial goal was to just cleanup update-inetd (which I'm doing anyway), but at some point I bought into the idea of a clean rewrite. It helped that ``rewrite'' is plastered all over update-inetd's bug reports, including from you. But anyway that's no excuse for changing the traditional way of making changes to inetd, and indeed not consulting beforehand with you and Pierre Habouzit. > And do we really need all the complexity to support xinetd, which is > installed by 3.8% of the users? AFAICS we can't support transparent switching between inetd and xinetd, while we keep the traditional configuration files as the authoritative ones. Since the latter is more important, I tag #8927 wontfix. I'll happily untag it when someone comes along with a plan that satisfies everyone (but I won't hold my breath) > > [1] 40: the number of update-inetd's rdeps in main/unstable, excluding > > ``Provides: inet-superserver'' packages > Feel free to file bugs. I'll instead go the (recommended by devref) lintian way. -- debtags-organised WNPP bugs: http://members.hellug.gr/serzan/wnpp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
