On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 07:31:35AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:06:16PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >> 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. > Right, isn't that the proposal: demote inetd and update-inetd to > optional/extra? Perhaps I misunderstood, but I read this as a proposal to make /use/ of inetd optional for the packages that currently depend on it. -- 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
