Serafeim Zanikolas <ser...@hellug.gr> writes: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 04:18:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote [edted]:
>> I would suggest disallowing example entries altogether; let packages >> use the '#<off>#' syntax instead. Or is there some reason I'm missing >> why we would want to support so many different ways for packages to add >> lines to update-inetd? > I'm all for simplicity, so by all means let's disallow example entries. > - If a package wants to install an example entry into `/etc/inetd.conf', > - the entry must be preceded with exactly one hash character (`#'). > - Such lines are treated as "commented out by user" by the > - `update-inetd' script and are not changed or activated during package > - updates. > + Lines preceded with exactly one hash character (`#') are treated as > + "commented out by user" by the `update-inetd' script and must not be > + changed or activated during package updates. > The case of example entries is beyond the scope of policy. update-inetd > can easily get a new ``--add-disabled'' switch (which will be identical > to ``--add'' except for prefixing the entry with '#<off># '). I agree with this in principle, but adding that as a must is going to make a fair number of packages instantly buggy. We should have some sort of transition plan and advance warning for packages that install example inetd entries, I think. It shouldn't be too difficult to detect calls to update-inetd where the service is commented out. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
