Re: update-inetd and xinetd

2006-02-14 Thread Gabor Gombas
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 08:37:26AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > I realise that update-inetd needs to be more flexible than just servicing > xinetd and netkit-inetd style configurations though... What do you mean by "more flexible"? IMHO update-inetd should implement just the minimum needed for

Re: update-inetd and xinetd

2006-02-14 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Feb 13, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been wanting to see netkit-inetd gone from base for many many years > now. Once, aj told me what needed to be done, and I think I even wrote it > down. Somewhere. I just have to find it again... This follows the usual pattern: I explain w

Re: update-inetd and xinetd

2006-02-13 Thread Andrew Pollock
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:09:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Feb 13, Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > However it whould be great if update-inetd could create a file in > Many new features in update-inetd would be great, but nobody ever > finished implementing them. > I've been

Re: update-inetd and xinetd

2006-02-13 Thread Marco d'Itri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 13, Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However it whould be great if update-inetd could create a file in Many new features in update-inetd would be great, but nobody ever finished implementing them. - -- ciao, Marco -BEGIN PGP SIGN