On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:43:39 +0100 Dimitris Papastamos <d...@spl9.org> wrote:
> I am personally a fan of inetd and I think that there's nothing > inherently wrong with the concept. That's debatable, but honestly, this topic is not that important. > A simple inetd implementation would be nice to have. It means that > you can just code a daemon without any networking related code and > just let inetd hook up stdin/stdout/stderr to the sockets. > > You can sort of hack around this using nc + simple shell scripts. > > A suckless inetd should be relatively straightforward to implement. I trust you there. A suckless implementation would be cool, given it's used very frequently. > I am not sure if quark should support inetd though, as we would need > to support both inetd and the builtin networking code. It wouldn't make much sense. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN <d...@frign.de>
