Maurice van der Pot wrote: [Wed Jul 06 2005, 02:20:15PM EDT]
> If we do it for xinetd files, we should also do it for logrotate files.
Agreed.
FWIW, I'd like to see xinetd and logrotate in default USE for the
profiles since otherwise it would be a pain to go through and remerge
things after
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:36:54AM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> No, the USE flag is the right way.
If we do it for xinetd files, we should also do it for logrotate files.
Right now there are 4 packages that have logrotate as a local USE flag,
but I know for a fact there are more that can use it (
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 10:32 am, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 July 2005 16:17, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the hasq part is pointless and the insinto is bad form for a do* func
>
> It's not pointless, ignoring it will make us come back to the old problem
> of dopamd/newpamd f
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 16:17, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the hasq part is pointless and the insinto is bad form for a do* func
It's not pointless, ignoring it will make us come back to the old problem of
dopamd/newpamd functions which couldn't be used on non-optional-pam-dependant
packages becaus
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 09:55 am, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 July 2005 15:36, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > Diego: what is the content of doxinetd?
>
> Right now? It doesn't exists.
> It was an idea. I think something like:
>
> doxinetd() {
> if ! hasq xinetd ${IUSE} || us
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 15:36, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Diego: what is the content of doxinetd?
Right now? It doesn't exists.
It was an idea. I think something like:
doxinetd() {
if ! hasq xinetd ${IUSE} || use xinetd;
insinto /etc/xinetd.d #or whatever the dir is, not sure
Vapier wrote: [Tue Jul 05 2005, 07:26:26PM EDT]
> > so what we should do?
> > Add a global xinetd useflag and a doxinetd function to add/remove the
> > installed config files?
> > Yeah i know they aren't so big.. but "the less, the best".
>
> personally i'd support a doxinetd func that would che
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:34:20PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> personally i'd support a doxinetd func that would check to see if xinetd is
>> installed rather than go with a USE flag ...
>
>This kind of auto-enabling stuff is our bane upstream, so I don't see
>that crea
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 01:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> personally i'd support a doxinetd func that would check to see if xinetd is
> installed rather than go with a USE flag ...
As Donnie also said, "automagical" stuff is not so good.
One can want the xinetd file for cvs but not svn for example.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> personally i'd support a doxinetd func that would check to see if xinetd is
> installed rather than go with a USE flag ...
This kind of auto-enabling stuff is our bane upstream, so I don't see
that creating more of it ourselve
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 06:17 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> inetd is the old-unix-insecure implementation that it's usually used.
> xinetd is a (drop-in?) replacement for it which is now used by quite
> everyone who wants an inetd-style daemons.
you cant technically say it's a drop in sin
Time for cleanups in Gentoo/FreeBSD.. we already disabled inetd building in
our latest ebuilds, but that isn't exactly sorted out for a reason: I don't
know how to deal with xinetd.
Let me summarize:
inetd is the old-unix-insecure implementation that it's usually used.
xinetd is a (drop-in?) re
12 matches
Mail list logo
