Serafeim Zanikolas <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:46:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> And then xinetd wouldn't have to go through update-inetd and could just >> use the fragments directly, which would resolve that integration >> problem in what I think is a cleaner way. > In the long run, we might have to extend the vocabulary of xinetd > fragments to support features that will be unique to a brand new > inetd. To deal with that scenario seamlessly, we're best passing xinetd > fragments through the conf translator anyway, even though it won't have > to translate/strip anything until that shiny brand new inetd comes > along. Yeah, that's probably a reasonable point. I do think starting with the xinetd syntax for the fragment syntax would be nice. A lot of upstreams already provide xinetd configuration fragments. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
