-----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. Also the way > around. Not if done right. Please read the whole thread, at least. > It might be a better way to have a lintian warning if a package has a > update-inetd call and no xinetd config or vis versa. Note that xinetd do Pure idiocy. The whole point of update-inetd is to not have to distribuite configurations for every inetd flavour. - -- ciao, Marco -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGrczRFGfw2OHuP7ERAkWMAJ4hsGGWlgrZ9XJ9imv50fj4S2aLogCcDTKF 6eEZXof8WwSyXO8/FPg7Mcc= =e5UW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
