[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: > On Jul 29, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Isn't openbsd-inetd priority:standard? That's enough to make the >> real-package unnecessary, afaik (and that lets the default inetd be >> changed simply by changing the priorities of the packages, rather than >> the dependencies of lots of packages). > Maybe, but I have never heard of this exception to the rule. Me either. This would be a good thing to file as a Policy bug if you think it should change (I'm sorry about the lack of progress on that front; I've been trying to find time to take the next step on the open Policy issues for three weeks and failing so far, but I still have good intentions). > It could also be argued that it's time to demote *inetd packages as > optional. I agree with this. We're fast getting to the point where the average Unix server doesn't need it, let alone desktops. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
