On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Just looking at the packages requiring an inet superserver, you'll see that > it's probably that nowadays users don't need a superserver at all[0].
Yes, and many users no longer have a superserver installed for that reason. > I'm wondering if making super servers become optionnal wouldn't be a worthy > goal for squeeze. Why? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Having a superserver installed isn't broken. Why should every daemon have to implement connection handling when they can offload that to the inetd? Demoting inetd from standard to optional seems to me like a reasonable release goal; that doesn't require patching lots of upstream code that works just fine the way it is already. In fact, AFAICS it doesn't require patching any of our packages. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
