On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 01:43:47AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote [edited]: > I would really rather we went with the proposal I put forward in this > thread: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00496.html > > in this message: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00573.html
Sorry too many downsides: - too disruptive, too much work - how are you going to keep track of user-policy along the lines of "I don't want ftp enabled no matter what packages are installed in the future"? - you'll have to re-implement update-inetd from scratch, except that now the functionality will be spread all over the place - you need to ship fragments for every supported format Having read several criticisms of update-inetd, I still think that we're better off fixing it than starting from scratch (please don't spend any time trying to convince me otherwise; if you feel like it, let's discuss how to fix it's problems than hypothetical alternative approaches). update-inetd has many open bugs: - it _is_ actually buggy (most notably #510406) - the documentation is not in-your-face explicit about user-disabled entries being preceded with only one '#'; '##' won't do, '# ' or anything else won't do either - policy doesn't help (hence this bug) and it's silent on how update-inetd should deal with service entries that are commented out with neither '#' nor '#<off>#' (how about adding a lintian warning for these cases?) - perhaps due to policy and the --comment-chars misfeature, maintainer scripts might not always do the right thing (meaning, never disable a service with anything but the default comment-chars) -S -- debtags-organised WNPP bugs: http://members.hellug.gr/serzan/wnpp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
