On Sunday 29 July 2007 12:42, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jul 29, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The rationale for samba depending on update-inetd was that samba does > > *not* depend on the availability of an inet superserver; it only depends > > on the availability of the update-inetd interface, in order for its > > maintainer scripts to run correctly. > > Again, the update-inetd interface is formally provided by > inet-superserver and not by update-inetd.
So you're saying that inet-superservers that use the traditional inetd.conf
should depend on update-inetd as their way of implementing the update-inetd
interface. Packages that provide services to be served by inet-superservers
should depend on, recommend or suggest inet-superserver. It would be good if
update-inetd's package description explained this.
> > But I would still like input on the use of this dependency for samba; I
> > rather expect we would get complaints if samba depended on
> > inet-superserver when it doesn't use it in the default configuration.
>
> Do not depend on the presence of /usr/sbin/update-inetd then.
But: AFAIU, /etc/inetd.conf is now owned by any package, because it's used by
several packages and updated by update-inetd. I think it makes sense for
service packages, like samba, to update inetd.conf even though no
inet-superserver is installed, so that if/when one is installed, the
configuration is in place. Furthermore, other inet-superservers will want to
call update-inetd's update-inetd from their own update-inetd, to facilitate
switching from one inet-superserver to another. On the other hand, perhaps
that should be the administrator's decision: If they don't ever want to use
inetd they shouldn't have to have update-inetd installed.
--
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
pgpx7P7geNCSP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
