* Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Enrico Weigelt wrote: > >* Bruno Lustosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ><snip> > > > >>anyway, why use old inetd at all? xinetd is way more powerful and secure! > > > >well, I've already been using it for over 10 years, I never had > >serious problems with it, and has all I need. > >So why should I now switch to xinetd ? > > It's more modern.
Ah. Interesting argument. Because it's quite modern (for the kids) to wear overwide pants, there's no need to produce tight ones anylonger ? Great. > >Wouldn't it make more sense to let "inetd" be an virtual package > >which can be configured by some useflag to get either classic inetd > >or xinet in, maybe xinet as default ? > > Why? The current way is quite fine, IMO. You can easily select > which package to install, why depend on some USE flag? Following you line of argumentation, the virtual package "inetd" should be dropped, since people can directly choose "xinetd". cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
