> I don't know exactly how it happened, but a large number of maintainers > apparently ignored the discussions on this list and added to their > packages a dependency on update-inetd.
Are you asking for a flamewar? I really don't see any justification for beeing attacked by you in such a way. The fact is simple: I don't read this list (lack of time and lack of interest in flamepostings like yours), therefore i do not know about any "discussions on this list" and therefore i didn't know that i did wrong. So its an affront to accuse me of ignoring a discussion. Get yourself some manners. In fact i replaced the dependency on inetd with a dependency on update-inetd some time ago because i felt this to be right we. I even checked with the inetd-maintainer. My package needs the update-inetd binary and depending on update-inetd surely seemed the right way because my impression was that update-inetd would be the new package to depend on when one needs update-ineted. If you want to fix the situation, try to write a nicely worded advice what to do. If you only want to spread flames, then f... off. I'm now really pissed by our flame attempt, because i haven't done wrong really. Regards Michael -- It's an insane world, but i'm proud to be a part of it. -- Bill Hicks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
