> > I'd counterpropose to make this optional. I very much like the
> > fact that the runlevels have no default meaning and would prefer
> > it to stay that way, although I can see the issue of LSB
> > compliance.
> Personally, I hate that it isn't a standardized way to get down to
> a minimal syst
> > - inetd begone! -> xinetd (better mechanism to control DoS,
> > separation, etc.)
> xinetd begone. There is no justification for using anything
> resembling inetd on a modern system.
What planet do you live on? I want MORE use of inetd, not less. I want to be
able to select a service, a
> > I'm wondering, what happens if you want to install MOST of the deps
> > from source? Wouldn't it be better to have apt-build (using the
> > "official apt algorithms") ask on a dep-by-dep basis whether you
> > want it compiled from source or installed from a binary?
> Which is basically what so
> > Your priority are your users, and if Debian has decided to focus
> > only on some key architectures it would be the best for them to
> > help them switching to Gentoo instead of hacking Debian to become
> > some cheap Gentoo clone for most architectures.
> I don't view this as being a cheap G
4 matches
Mail list logo
