On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:58:31PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> If we have a big comment at the top of the generated file
> saying in effect "do not edit; edit /etc/inetd.conf.d/xxx and
> run update-inetd", we shouldn't have too many problems. It's
> already done elsewhere.
Then move that file fa
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:22:50AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
> > I did propose we switch to inetd-using packages providing a
> > config file fragment in e.g. /etc/inetd.d, and having update-inetd
> > simply regenerate inetd.conf from these pieces (and it would
> > be trivial for
Roger Leigh writes ("Re: inetd's status in Debian"):
> The fact that update-inetd directly updates inetd.conf and inetd.conf
Since this was my fault, I would just like to apologise again.
> I did propose we switch to inetd-using packages providing a
> config file fragm
Roger Leigh wrote:
> I did propose we switch to inetd-using packages providing a
> config file fragment in e.g. /etc/inetd.d, and having update-inetd
> simply regenerate inetd.conf from these pieces (and it would
> be trivial for it to preserve user edits with this mechanism),
> and it would also b
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 08:12:56AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ke, 2009-03-11 kello 00:00 +, Roger Leigh kirjoitti:
> > Additionally, not all inetds support
> > IPv6, so adding these lines will break some inetds.
>
> Should we consider lack of IPv6 support as a bug?
>
> Ah yes, it's been a
ke, 2009-03-11 kello 00:00 +, Roger Leigh kirjoitti:
> Additionally, not all inetds support
> IPv6, so adding these lines will break some inetds.
Should we consider lack of IPv6 support as a bug?
Ah yes, it's been a release goal since etch.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Most machines nowadays have enough memory, and most daemons provide a
> standalone mode (I mean who configures apache as an inetd service ?).
> Just looking at the packages requiring an inet superserver, you'll see that
> it's prob
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 06:39:23AM +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 07:31:35AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > 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
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 08:44:06AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 10, Luk Claes wrote:
>
> > Btw, lots of packages are depending on update-inetd while it's
> > guaranteed to be available when depending on inet-superserver.
> Indeed, this is broken. IIRC some helpful soul started reporting "b
On moandei 9 Maart 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Just looking at the packages requiring an inet superserver, you'll see that
> it's probably that nowadays users don't need a superserver at all[0].
>
> I'm wondering if making super servers become optionnal wouldn't be a worthy
> goal for squeeze.
On Mar 10, Luk Claes wrote:
> Btw, lots of packages are depending on update-inetd while it's
> guaranteed to be available when depending on inet-superserver.
Indeed, this is broken. IIRC some helpful soul started reporting "bugs"
asking to depend on update-inetd too...
--
ciao,
Marco
signatur
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 07:31:35AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> 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
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
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Just looking at the packages requiring an inet superserver, you'll see that
> it's probably that nowadays users don't need a superserver at all[0].
Yes, and many users no longer have a superserver installed for that reason.
> I'm
14 matches
Mail list logo
