-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am Mo den 30. Jul 2007 um 13:34 schrieb Marco d'Itri: > > 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.
Id red the complete tree from the begin and there was nothing about that. If there was a old tree about inetd in the past please provide a link as I do not know when it was. > > 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. Maybe idiocy. But it IS a solution which work. Please also see the second choice I gave. In any case and to come to the begin again, the correct dependency would be: Depends: update-inetd Suggest: inet-superserver Gruß Klaus - -- Klaus Ethgen http://www.ethgen.de/ pub 2048R/D1A4EDE5 2000-02-26 Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fingerprint: D7 67 71 C4 99 A6 D4 FE EA 40 30 57 3C 88 26 2B -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBRq3tmp+OKpjRpO3lAQIZSwgAiEdck3ukzcH2e1ySzTaokhbGTgA1Q0KV EcllyHiC7t5AjKJb9hFHAXn8aaXuIwKPb76pu7mG2kKmHOQ/ojqK78ghcBaSspVE UmdvwwnG8OupYuseXbu8Ci2q9IysNmD1jWWr8e/EbKmjupFqJJDcARIqc6P5u7Xx yWWdGBH35WTmdIDRcB6ZIvuB6CrkyO4akZ9WBdAuDY+Aks20KQeSyOd159WQUpZA PR0BcBOT6p6MZ+T6IHu/ebyvqXzTdaD0ztHvm5UDKUZBw5iqLpqD1h5s3RL93htD m3HaYO8BVkjKWTdI05fxEF2W4hei5SCg9FpoTVUQ8VECauKK7LfJgQ== =cMmn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
