-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Hi Marco,
>
> Am So den 29. Jul 2007 um 18:58 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
If you want a system without an inetd then do not it install one and do
not install packages depending on it. It's really that easy.
>>> Sorry but I th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> So far this case has not been handled automatically and I do not think
> it is worth supporting because it would require creating stand-alone
> update-inetd packages for each kind of inetd.
I'm not at all surprised if there's some problem with the idea o
On Aug 01, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Again, the update-inetd interface is formally provided by
> > inet-superserver and not by update-inetd.
> So there's no allowance for a package that wants to interface with inetd if
> it's installed, but doesn't depend on inetd being install
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:42:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > The rationale for samba depending on update-inetd was that samba does *not*
> > depend on the availability of an inet superserver; it only depends on the
> > availability of the update-inetd interface, in order for its maintainer
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jul 31, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm at a bit of a loss now as to whether to change lintian's checks or
>> not, although I did update the long description of that tag to not push
>> depending on update-inetd directly.
> Yes, because
On Jul 31, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > FWIW, presently the only inet-superserver package that doesn't depend on
> > update-inetd is rlinetd, and it diverts /usr/sbin/update-inetd rather
> > than conflicting.
> That seems wrong to me, too, although it probably predates the
> update-
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 10:46:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Couldn't any inet-superserver package that provides its own
>> update-inetd also Provide: update-inetd? Wouldn't that fix the
>> problem? It has to Conflict with update-inetd anyway.
>
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 10:46:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Couldn't any inet-superserver package that provides its own update-inetd
> also Provide: update-inetd? Wouldn't that fix the problem? It has to
> Conflict with update-inetd anyway.
FWIW, presently the only inet-superserver package t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mo den 30. Jul 2007 um 13:34 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> > Hmmm, Wrong in my opinion. If xinetd would have its own update-inetd and
> > software is installed in xinetd and $ADMIN decides to switch back to
> > traditional inetd the configuration is incon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 30, Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm, Wrong in my opinion. If xinetd would have its own update-inetd and
> software is installed in xinetd and $ADMIN decides to switch back to
> traditional inetd the configuration is inconsistent.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Marco,
Am So den 29. Jul 2007 um 18:58 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> > > If you want a system without an inetd then do not it install one and do
> > > not install packages depending on it. It's really that easy.
> > Sorry but I think you didn't understan
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 16:22 +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>
> But: AFAIU, /etc/inetd.conf is now owned by any package, because it's
> used by
> several packages and updated by update-inetd. I think it makes sense
> for
> service packages, like samba, to update inetd.conf even though no
> inet-s
On Sunday 29 July 2007 16:22, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> But: AFAIU, /etc/inetd.conf is now owned by any package, because it's used
Just to make myself clear: s/now/not/
--
Magnus Holmgren[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
"Exim is better at bei
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 29, Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you want a system without an inetd then do not it install one and do
> > not install packages depending on it. It's really that easy.
> Sorry but I think you didn't understand what I tryed to e
On Jul 29, Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're saying that inet-superservers that use the traditional inetd.conf
> should depend on update-inetd as their way of implementing the update-inetd
> interface. Packages that provide services to be served by inet-superservers
> shoul
Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But: AFAIU, /etc/inetd.conf is now owned by any package, because it's
> used by several packages and updated by update-inetd. I think it makes
> sense for service packages, like samba, to update inetd.conf even though
> no inet-superserver is installed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jul 29, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Isn't openbsd-inetd priority:standard? That's enough to make the
>> real-package unnecessary, afaik (and that lets the default inetd be
>> changed simply by changing the priorities of the packages, ra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Marco,
Am So den 29. Jul 2007 um 13:57 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> > The update-inetd package is finally a good way to have a system with no
> > inetd installed (or the ill situation that two (inetd and xinetd) are
> > installed the same time). Caus
On Sunday 29 July 2007 12:42, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 29, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The rationale for samba depending on update-inetd was that samba does
> > *not* depend on the availability of an inet superserver; it only depends
> > on the availability of the update-inetd
> I don't know exactly how it happened, but a large number of maintainers
> apparently ignored the discussions on this list and added to their
> packages a dependency on update-inetd.
Are you asking for a flamewar? I really don't see any justification for
beeing attacked by you in such a way.
Th
On Jul 29, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would even be more helpful if this could be summarized *and* filed
> as bugs with a clear suggestion of what should be done. I'm maybe a
Depend/Recommend/Suggest just "inet-superserver" or "openbsd-inet |
inet-superserver" (depending if
On Jul 29, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't openbsd-inetd priority:standard? That's enough to make the
> real-package unnecessary, afaik (and that lets the default inetd be
> changed simply by changing the priorities of the packages, rather than
> the dependencies of lots of packag
On Jul 29, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rationale for samba depending on update-inetd was that samba does *not*
> depend on the availability of an inet superserver; it only depends on the
> availability of the update-inetd interface, in order for its maintainer
> scripts to run
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 02:31:10 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>Probably not, but in this case common sense would have been enough since
>update-inetd does not depend on anything else.
Common sense? Is that the thing one cannot commonly expect?
Greetings
Marc
--
---
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:59:13AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 29, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So is anything ever valid other than openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver as a
> > dependency? I keep getting confused on the rules around using virtual
> > packages. Would rlinetd |
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The rationale for samba depending on update-inetd was that samba does
> *not* depend on the availability of an inet superserver; it only depends
> on the availability of the update-inetd interface, in order for its
> maintainer scripts to run correctly.
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:57:03AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I don't know exactly how it happened, but a large number of maintainers
> apparently ignored the discussions on this list and added to their
> packages a dependency on update-inetd.
> This is *TOTALLY WRONG* because the /usr/sbin/updat
> It might be helpful if you could summarise what packages are supposed to
> be doing here - this may even affect enough packages to warrant a mail
> to debian-devel-announce. I don't recall ever seeing an announcement
> about this and I imagine that even among those maintainers who read this
> li
On Jul 29, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So is anything ever valid other than openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver as a
> dependency? I keep getting confused on the rules around using virtual
> packages. Would rlinetd | inet-superserver be okay? Would
Formally yes, but I do not think th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Jul 29, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Currently, lintian allows any combination of dependencies on the
>> following packages to satisfy the dependency requirement from calling
>> update-inetd in maintainer scripts:
>>
>> update-inetd
On Jul 29, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what are they *supposed* to depend on, only inet-superserver? I'm
Yes. Actually "openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver", since it is a virtual
package.
> failing to extract a clear guideline from half-remembered debian-devel
> discussions (as is
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:57:03AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I don't know exactly how it happened, but a large number of maintainers
> apparently ignored the discussions on this list and added to their
> packages a dependency on update-inetd.
> This is *TOTALLY WRONG* because the /usr/sbin/updat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> I don't know exactly how it happened, but a large number of maintainers
> apparently ignored the discussions on this list and added to their
> packages a dependency on update-inetd.
> This is *TOTALLY WRONG* because the /usr/sbin/update-inetd interface i
I don't know exactly how it happened, but a large number of maintainers
apparently ignored the discussions on this list and added to their
packages a dependency on update-inetd.
This is *TOTALLY WRONG* because the /usr/sbin/update-inetd interface is
guaranteed to be provided by whatever implements
34 matches
Mail list logo
