[gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1789 bytes --]

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?) replacement for it which is now used by quite everyone 
who wants an inetd-style daemons.

Now the problem is: I don't really know how inetd/xinetd works, I just used 
them some time ago to have a cvs pserver, but that was a very long time ago.
Right now, we have a couple of packages with xinetd useflag, one with inetd 
useflag, and others which doesn't care and just installs the configuration 
file unconditionally:

flame@enterprise ~ $ grep inetd devel/gentoo-x86/profiles/use.*
devel/gentoo-x86/profiles/use.local.desc:dev-db/firebird:inetd - If you want 
inetd version instead of a superserver (daemon)
devel/gentoo-x86/profiles/use.local.desc:net-ftp/proftpd:xinetd - Enable 
support for starting from xinetd
devel/gentoo-x86/profiles/use.local.desc:net-ftp/vsftpd:xinetd - Add support 
for running under xinetd
devel/gentoo-x86/profiles/use.local.desc:net-mail/qpopper:xinetd - If you want 
inetd version instead of standalone
devel/gentoo-x86/profiles/use.local.desc:net-misc/linux-identd:xinetd - Use 
xinetd instead of the initscript
flame@enterprise ~ $ ls /etc/xinetd.d/
cups-lpd    cvspserver  svnserve    swat        telnetd

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".

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Mike Frysinger]

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 since you have to redo the config 
files, but for all intents and purposes, it is ... old school inetd suffered 
from many issues (resource management being the foremost) so xinetd was 
born ... it is the preferred inetd in Gentoo

> flame@enterprise ~ $ grep inetd devel/gentoo-x86/profiles/use.*
> devel/gentoo-x86/profiles/use.local.desc:dev-db/firebird:inetd - If you
> want inetd version instead of a superserver (daemon)

unrelated to anything in this e-mail

> 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 check to see if xinetd is 
installed rather than go with a USE flag ...
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----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 ourselves is a good idea.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCy1E8XVaO67S1rtsRAobrAJ98Z6cb98l9+tf1r77dh0Ya4KrJ5QCgqC6i
SU9hvWrffRNV6YFd/XrcfeI=
=JnZC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Stelian Ionescu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 600 bytes --]

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 creating more of it ourselves is a good idea.
yes, but since it's common practice to have all xinetd services disabled by
default that won't hurt because the user will have to enable the service
"manually" anyway.

-- 
Stelian Ionescu aka fe[nl]ix
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 443 bytes --]

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.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 602 bytes --]

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 check to see if xinetd is 
> installed rather than go with a USE flag ...

No, the USE flag is the right way.  Otherwise it's an environmental
dependency, exactly the thing we try to avoid.

Diego: what is the content of doxinetd?

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 492 bytes --]

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 about it
		doins $@
	fi
}

that's just a quick mockup, sure.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Mike Frysinger]

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} || use xinetd;
> 		insinto /etc/xinetd.d #or whatever the dir is, not sure about it
> 		doins $@
> 	fi
> }
>
> that's just a quick mockup, sure.

the hasq part is pointless and the insinto is bad form for a do* func

doxinetd() {
    if use xinetd ; then
        INSDESTREE=/etc/xinetd.d doins "$@"
    else
        true
    fi
}

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

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 because if someone had -pam in useflags the file wasn't installed, 
also if pam wasn't optional (and so pam was not in IUSE).

For the insinto, yeah you're right.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Mike Frysinger]

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 functions which couldn't be used on
> non-optional-pam-dependant packages because if someone had -pam in useflags
> the file wasn't installed, also if pam wasn't optional (and so pam was not
> in IUSE).

that's a hack if i ever heard one

you should add a 'force' flag or something ... `dopamd -f` ... making it rely 
on IUSE setting is just plain nasty
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Maurice van der Pot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 526 bytes --]

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 (well, at least
one anyway).

Maurice.

-- 
Maurice van der Pot

Gentoo Linux Developer   griffon26@gentoo.org     http://www.gentoo.org
Creator of BiteMe!       griffon26@kfk4ever.com   http://www.kfk4ever.com


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] inetd/xinetd useflags

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 367 bytes --]

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 putting them in make.conf

Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]