Hi! On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 22:06:23 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 10:02:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:54:19PM +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote: > > > * document that local policy will live in /etc/inetd.conf.d/ and any > > > manual > > > changes will be made effective by running update-inetd > > > > I think this violates the principle of least surprise (restarting the daemon > > after making your changes has been enough to make those changes take effect > > since the inception of these daemons), and will be displeasing to many > > admins as a result. > > I can't say that this part thrills me either. However, we have as yet > not come up with a saner alternative.
Yes that's something I don't like much either. But I was just thinking, another possibility could be to add support for xinetd framgments to the other three inted implementations. I'd gladly accept patches for inetutild-inetd (or cook one if we'd agree this is the way to go, time allows and no one has done so yet). Also using /etc/inetd.conf.d to store xinetd style framgnets seems a bit confusing to me. Why not reuse the xinetd directory instead? regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
