Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We really need a constant way of dealing with this in package updates.
>
> Currently I have two very opposing views, and not entirely convinced
> in either of them.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00279.html
>
> vs
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401258;msg=98
>
> It seems to boil down to:
>
> * should packages disable inetd config entries on removal and in
> preparation for upgrade, and then reenable the entries after upgrade
> is complete?
>
> * what about entries that should be disabled by default? That is the
> maintainer has decided the majority of users will not need it?
>
> * is solving this worthy of etch?
> --
> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I used to have proftpd in inetd.conf but with a increase connection
limit value and on every update the update-inetd would complain that
the entry it expects differs from the one found.
That should be fixed if it isn't already.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
