ke, 2009-03-11 kello 00:00 +, Roger Leigh kirjoitti:
Additionally, not all inetds support
IPv6, so adding these lines will break some inetds.
Should we consider lack of IPv6 support as a bug?
Ah yes, it's been a release goal since etch.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 08:12:56AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
ke, 2009-03-11 kello 00:00 +, Roger Leigh kirjoitti:
Additionally, not all inetds support
IPv6, so adding these lines will break some inetds.
Should we consider lack of IPv6 support as a bug?
Ah yes, it's been a release
Roger Leigh wrote:
I did propose we switch to inetd-using packages providing a
config file fragment in e.g. /etc/inetd.d, and having update-inetd
simply regenerate inetd.conf from these pieces (and it would
be trivial for it to preserve user edits with this mechanism),
and it would also be
Roger Leigh writes (Re: inetd's status in Debian):
The fact that update-inetd directly updates inetd.conf and inetd.conf
Since this was my fault, I would just like to apologise again.
I did propose we switch to inetd-using packages providing a
config file fragment in e.g. /etc/inetd.d
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:22:50AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
Roger Leigh wrote:
I did propose we switch to inetd-using packages providing a
config file fragment in e.g. /etc/inetd.d, and having update-inetd
simply regenerate inetd.conf from these pieces (and it would
be trivial for it to
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:58:31PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
If we have a big comment at the top of the generated file
saying in effect do not edit; edit /etc/inetd.conf.d/xxx and
run update-inetd, we shouldn't have too many problems. It's
already done elsewhere.
Then move that file far,
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I'm wondering if making super servers become optionnal wouldn't be a worthy
goal for squeeze.
Why? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Having a superserver installed isn't
broken. Why should every daemon
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 07:31:35AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I'm wondering if making super servers become optionnal wouldn't be a worthy
goal for squeeze.
Why? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Having
On Mar 10, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote:
Btw, lots of packages are depending on update-inetd while it's
guaranteed to be available when depending on inet-superserver.
Indeed, this is broken. IIRC some helpful soul started reporting bugs
asking to depend on update-inetd too...
--
ciao,
On moandei 9 Maart 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Just looking at the packages requiring an inet superserver, you'll see that
it's probably that nowadays users don't need a superserver at all[0].
I'm wondering if making super servers become optionnal wouldn't be a worthy
goal for squeeze.
Yes,
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 08:44:06AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 10, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote:
Btw, lots of packages are depending on update-inetd while it's
guaranteed to be available when depending on inet-superserver.
Indeed, this is broken. IIRC some helpful soul started
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 06:39:23AM +, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 07:31:35AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I'm wondering if making super servers become optionnal wouldn't be a
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Most machines nowadays have enough memory, and most daemons provide a
standalone mode (I mean who configures apache as an inetd service ?).
Just looking at the packages requiring an inet superserver, you'll see that
it's
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Just looking at the packages requiring an inet superserver, you'll see that
it's probably that nowadays users don't need a superserver at all[0].
Yes, and many users no longer have a superserver installed for that reason.
I'm
14 matches
Mail list logo
