[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 29, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- create a /etc/inetd.d directory
Wrong approach. Write an update-inetd replacement which can maintain its
own database and can compare it to an existing configuration to know if
the local admin changed
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 10:17:22PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
The main problem (as I see it) is that the current update-inetd is too
complex, and can't migrate configurations between different inetd
config file formats.
Why should that be the job of
On Nov 29, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- create a /etc/inetd.d directory
Wrong approach. Write an update-inetd replacement which can maintain its
own database and can compare it to an existing configuration to know if
the local admin changed something.
IIRC I did mention something
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:16:04AM +, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:34:47PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
[0] the reasoning is: this is clear to me that through update-inetd
that is the debian way to enable inet-like services, something
that claims to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 22:05 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
There we have completely other understanding of. xinetd is a replacement
(with its own configuration). Using the inetd.conf you have no benefit
of using the plain old one. The compat
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:34:47PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
[0] the reasoning is: this is clear to me that through update-inetd
that is the debian way to enable inet-like services, something
that claims to be an inet-superserver must
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 10:17:22PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
The main problem (as I see it) is that the current update-inetd is too
complex, and can't migrate configurations between different inetd
config file formats.
Why should that be the job of the current update-inetd?
And every
On 28-Nov-07, 13:01 (CST), Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Greenland schrieb:
On 28-Nov-07, 05:25 (CST), Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
wrong. providing inet-superserver means that you are able to perform
what any implementation of
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 05:42:43PM +, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
Hello,
Am Di den 27. Nov 2007 um 16:13 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
(1) xinetd reads and honours /etc/inetd.conf ;
As long as this is default switched of this might be ok.
No it's on by default, and easy to change in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Pierre,
Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 9:45 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
As long as this is default switched of this might be ok.
No it's on by default, and easy to change in /etc/default/xinetd.
So it is easy switchable. (May there are a debconf
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:15:05AM +, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
Hi Pierre,
Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 9:45 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
As long as this is default switched of this might be ok.
No it's on by default, and easy to change in /etc/default/xinetd.
So it is easy switchable.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:51:07AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Well, not completely true. There might be more than one understanding.
Mine is that providing a inet-superserver provides the _functionality_
of a inet-superserver not the same _config file_.
wrong. providing
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:08:27AM +, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:51:07AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Well, not completely true. There might be more than one understanding.
Mine is that providing a inet-superserver provides the _functionality_
of a
Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:15:05AM +, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
Since xinetd conflicts with inet-superserver it's the sole one that
can honour /etc/inetd.conf.
Well, not completely true. There might be more than one understanding.
Mine is that providing a
On 28-Nov-07, 05:25 (CST), Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
wrong. providing inet-superserver means that you are able to perform
what any implementation of inetd(8) does, namely, reading
/etc/inetd.conf, and _then_ possibly have extended features on its
On Nov 28, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:51:07AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
wrong. providing inet-superserver means that you are able to perform
what any implementation of inetd(8) does, namely, reading
/etc/inetd.conf, and _then_ possibly have
Steve Greenland schrieb:
On 28-Nov-07, 05:25 (CST), Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
wrong. providing inet-superserver means that you are able to perform
what any implementation of inetd(8) does, namely, reading
/etc/inetd.conf, and _then_ possibly have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 11:51 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
(May there are a debconf question?)
No I won't use debconf here, because it's definitely the most viable
way to use xinetd nowadays. Though the next upload will document that
fact
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:01:13PM +, Michael Biebl wrote:
Steve Greenland schrieb:
On 28-Nov-07, 05:25 (CST), Michael Biebl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
wrong. providing inet-superserver means that you are able to perform
what any implementation of inetd(8)
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:06:13PM +, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 11:51 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
Pardon? debconf overkill? This is right the correct place for it as it
change the basic way the package work completely.
Debconf can be used if there isn't a sane default.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 08:06:13PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
Am Mi den 28. Nov 2007 um 11:51 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
(May there are a debconf question?)
No I won't use debconf here, because it's definitely the most viable
way to use xinetd nowadays. Though the next upload will
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:34:47PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
[0] the reasoning is: this is clear to me that through update-inetd
that is the debian way to enable inet-like services, something
that claims to be an inet-superserver must react on update-inetd
triggered
I recently took over xinetd maintenance. Now that we have many
*-inetd's the previous behaviour of xinetd diverting netkit-inetd's
conffiles (that was already quite disputable) felt really wrong, so I've
enforced the default use of the -inetd_compat for xinetd. This way:
(1) xinetd reads and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Am Di den 27. Nov 2007 um 16:13 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
(1) xinetd reads and honours /etc/inetd.conf ;
As long as this is default switched of this might be ok.
(2) if a service is configured through /etc/xinetd.d/ own
24 matches
Mail list logo
