Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 10:17:22PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> The main problem (as I see it) is that the current update-inetd is too
>> complex, and can't migrate configurations between different inetd
>> config file formats.
>
> Why should that be th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 29, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> - create a /etc/inetd.d directory
> Wrong approach. Write an update-inetd replacement which can maintain its
> own database and can compare it to an existing configuration to know if
> the local admin
On Nov 29, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - create a /etc/inetd.d directory
Wrong approach. Write an update-inetd replacement which can maintain its
own database and can compare it to an existing configuration to know if
the local admin changed something.
> IIRC I did mention something
On 28-Nov-07, 13:01 (CST), Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland schrieb:
> > On 28-Nov-07, 05:25 (CST), Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
> >>> wrong. providing inet-superserver means that you are able to perform
> >>> what any implemen
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 10:17:22PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> The main problem (as I see it) is that the current update-inetd is too
> complex, and can't migrate configurations between different inetd
> config file formats.
Why should that be the job of the current update-inetd?
> And every main
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:34:47PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> [0] the reasoning is: this is clear to me that through update-inetd
>> that is the debian way to enable inet-like services, something
>> that claims to be an inet-superser
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 22:05 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
> > There we have completely other understanding of. xinetd is a replacement
> > (with its own configuration). Using the inetd.conf you have no benefit
> > of using the plain old one. The co
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:16:04AM +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:34:47PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > [0] the reasoning is: this is clear to me that through update-inetd
> > that is the debian way to enable inet-like services, something
> > that claims
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:34:47PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> [0] the reasoning is: this is clear to me that through update-inetd
> that is the debian way to enable inet-like services, something
> that claims to be an inet-superserver must react on update-inetd
> triggered
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 08:06:13PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 11:51 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
> > > (May there are a debconf question?)
> > No I won't use debconf here, because it's definitely the most viable
> > way to use xinetd nowadays. Though the next upload will
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:06:13PM +, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 11:51 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
> Pardon? debconf overkill? This is right the correct place for it as it
> change the basic way the package work completely.
Debconf can be used if there isn't a sane default
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:01:13PM +, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Steve Greenland schrieb:
> > On 28-Nov-07, 05:25 (CST), Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
> >>> wrong. providing inet-superserver means that you are able to perform
> >>> what any implementation
Steve Greenland schrieb:
> On 28-Nov-07, 05:25 (CST), Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
>>> wrong. providing inet-superserver means that you are able to perform
>>> what any implementation of inetd(8) does, namely, reading
>>> /etc/inetd.conf, and _then_ possib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 11:51 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
> > (May there are a debconf question?)
>
> No I won't use debconf here, because it's definitely the most viable
> way to use xinetd nowadays. Though the next upload will document that
>
On Nov 28, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:51:07AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > wrong. providing inet-superserver means that you are able to perform
> > what any implementation of inetd(8) does, namely, reading
> > /etc/inetd.conf, and _then_ possibly
On 28-Nov-07, 05:25 (CST), Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
> > wrong. providing inet-superserver means that you are able to perform
> > what any implementation of inetd(8) does, namely, reading
> > /etc/inetd.conf, and _then_ possibly have extended features on
Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:15:05AM +, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
>
>>> Since xinetd conflicts with inet-superserver it's the sole one that
>>> can honour /etc/inetd.conf.
>> Well, not completely true. There might be more than one understanding.
>> Mine is that providing a
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:08:27AM +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:51:07AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > Well, not completely true. There might be more than one understanding.
> > > Mine is that providing a inet-superserver provides the _functionality_
> > > of a ine
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:51:07AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Well, not completely true. There might be more than one understanding.
> > Mine is that providing a inet-superserver provides the _functionality_
> > of a inet-superserver not the same _config file_.
> wrong. providing inet-sup
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:15:05AM +, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 9:45 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
> > > As long as this is default switched of this might be ok.
> >
> > No it's on by default, and easy to change in /etc/default/xinetd.
>
> So it is easy swi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Pierre,
Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 9:45 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
> > As long as this is default switched of this might be ok.
>
> No it's on by default, and easy to change in /etc/default/xinetd.
So it is easy switchable. (May there are a debco
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 05:42:43PM +, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am Di den 27. Nov 2007 um 16:13 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
> > (1) xinetd reads and honours /etc/inetd.conf ;
>
> As long as this is default switched of this might be ok.
No it's on by default, and easy to change in /et
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Am Di den 27. Nov 2007 um 16:13 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
> (1) xinetd reads and honours /etc/inetd.conf ;
As long as this is default switched of this might be ok.
> (2) if a service is configured through /etc/xinetd.d/ own
> configu
I recently took over xinetd maintenance. Now that we have many
*-inetd's the previous behaviour of xinetd diverting netkit-inetd's
conffiles (that was already quite disputable) felt really wrong, so I've
enforced the default use of the -inetd_compat for xinetd. This way:
(1) xinetd reads and
24 matches
Mail list logo
