[I'm not switching to private emails as we're getting valuable feedback here]
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:34:11PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote [edited]: > Alternatively, the xinetd format is /currently/ the superset, but that's > perhaps not flexible enough for the future since we're then tied into being > compatible with that single implementation. Please see my email to Russ. > The next bit would be writing the update-inetd replacement (which > could just be part of the existing update-inetd, used when called > with no arguments, and/or run on every invocation). If called with > arguments, it will work as usual; the old code would be removed > after the transition is done so it just does nothing, or emits > a warning. I'd prefer something more explicit: maintain update-inetd as is, and add update-inetd-ng. (Also, because I'd rather write the new functionality in python. I like perl but I'm more confident with python). I've filed an ITA for update-inetd (#472470). Short-term action plan: - prepare a release to take ownership of the package and fix some major bugs (sponsorship anyone?) - write and document update-inetd-ng - provide migration guidelines and modify packages to use both scripts Cheers, Serafeim -- debtags-organised WNPP bugs: http://members.hellug.gr/serzan/wnpp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
