[apologies for the late response]
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 05:35:37PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote [edited]:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:13:45AM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:59:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote [edited]:
> > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:40:51PM +01
]] Guillem Jover
| The other one I can offer is update-exim4.conf, which is the default
| from several ways to handle the exim4 configuration. But something I've
| always found pretty confusing and always switched my boxes to use the
| monolithic configuration file in /etc/exim4/exim4.conf. I'd w
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 13:59:48 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:40:51PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > There are many obvious examples of update-foo scripts which behave in
> > this manner. The requirement to run a script to update the working
> > configuration is nothing n
Hi!
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 22:06:23 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 10:02:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:54:19PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> > > * document that local policy will live in /etc/inetd.conf.d/ and any
> > > manual
> > > ch
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:13:45AM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:59:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote [edited]:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:40:51PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > but the primary benefits are making inetd support in maintainer scripts
> > > both ro
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:59:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote [edited]:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:40:51PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > but the primary benefits are making inetd support in maintainer scripts
> > both robust and idempotent.
>
> update-inetd in its present form can already be us
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:19:02PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:54:19PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> > > * document that local policy will live in /etc/inetd.conf.d/ and any
> > > manual
> > > changes will be made effective by running update-inetd
> > I thin
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 22:02:21 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:54:19PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> > * document that local policy will live in /etc/inetd.conf.d/ and any manual
> > changes will be made effective by running update-inetd
>
> I think this violate
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 10:02:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:54:19PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> > As the new vict^Wmaintainer of update-inetd, I'd appreciate a review of the
> > proposal below to migrate it to dpkg triggers [0]
>
> > * update-inetd will drop
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:40:51PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> It's not just about supporting xinetd, as I hope the initial post
> made clear. It's using the xinetd syntax certainly (why reinvent
> the wheel when you can reuse the format as the superset used by all
> existing inetds?), but the pri
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:30:25PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 04, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
>
> > As the new vict^Wmaintainer of update-inetd, I'd appreciate a review of the
> > proposal below to migrate it to dpkg triggers [0]
> Maybe you could have discussed it with the former maintain
tag 8927 + wontfix
thanks
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:30:25PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote [edited]:
> On Sep 04, Serafeim Zanikolas 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 ano
On Sep 04, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> As the new vict^Wmaintainer of update-inetd, I'd appreciate a review of the
> proposal below to migrate it to dpkg triggers [0]
Maybe you could have discussed it with the former maintainer, so I could
have explained why I never implemented the changes you ar
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 10:02:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote [edited]:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:54:19PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> Invocations of update-inetd that lead to local policy overrides are bugs in
> the caller, not in update-inetd. There is an explicitly reserved comment
>
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:54:19PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
> As the new vict^Wmaintainer of update-inetd, I'd appreciate a review of the
> proposal below to migrate it to dpkg triggers [0]
> The Current Messy State of Affairs
> update-inetd script is problematic (maintainer scripts use i
Hello world,
As the new vict^Wmaintainer of update-inetd, I'd appreciate a review of the
proposal below to migrate it to dpkg triggers [0]
The Current Messy State of Affairs
update-inetd script is problematic (maintainer scripts use it to update the
/etc/inetd.conf conffile leading to local-poli
16 matches
Mail list logo
