On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:59:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote [edited]: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:40:51PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > but the primary benefits are making inetd support in maintainer scripts > > both robust and idempotent. > > update-inetd in its present form can already be used to achieve this.
I beg to differ. update-inetd assumes that a service name (``ftp'') is sufficient to enable, disable and remove a service, whereas to be certain of what service is selected, one has to additionally specify protocol and path to the server binary. This currently can be done with a little bit of imagination using the optional --pattern switch (which strangely though is not available in --remove mode) I'll keep improving update-inetd regardless of any migration but the problem remains: it provides too much flexibility that is naturally abused. And while we're at it, why does it even have the enable/disable switches? Shouldn't maintainer scripts only use add and remove? (If you disagree, have a look at #168847) -- debtags-organised WNPP bugs: http://members.hellug.gr/serzan/wnpp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
