From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ft98E-0002Gd-8C for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:16:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k5LKD2jg013419; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:13:02 GMT Received: from hetzner.email-server.info (new.email-server.info [213.133.109.44]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5LK0hMD004856 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:00:43 GMT Received: by hetzner.email-server.info (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CC84130485; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:04:39 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL=0.079,BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Contact: Contact Address X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1-gr0 (2006-03-10) on hetzner.email-server.info X-Spam-Relays: Trusted=, Untrusted=[ ip=88.130.68.57 rdns=mue-88-130-68-057.dsl.tropolys.de helo=!192.168.1.244! by=hetzner.email-server.info ident= envfrom= intl=0 id=47E632A55E auth= ] X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Bayes: Score=0.0000, Tokens=Tokens: new, 20; hammy, 87; neutral, 48; spammy, 4., Hammy=0.000-+--H*M:mid, 0.000-+--H*r:sk:mue-88-, 0.000-+--H*RU:sk:mue-88-, 0.000-+--H*p:U*listen, 0.000-+--H*r:sk:gentoo-, Spammy=0.952-+--wear, 0.901-+--city, 0.899-+--H*r:sk:hetzner, 0.870-+--classic X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.1-gr0 X-Spam-Externals: DCC Brand "", Result - Pyzor=, RBL [213.133.109.44] [10 new.email-server.info.] Received: from [192.168.1.244] (mue-88-130-68-057.dsl.tropolys.de [88.130.68.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hetzner.email-server.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E632A55E for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:04:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4499A5B0.1080505@mid.email-server.info> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:01:52 +0200 From: Alexander Skwar User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060610) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] where's good old inetd ? References: <20060621121833.GA1571@nibiru.local> <20060621145318.GB8517@nibiru.local> In-Reply-To: <20060621145318.GB8517@nibiru.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7b473021-ee3a-4885-b159-c6c5c510677f X-Archives-Hash: 8bc0288af8ac221ff12e03ba8de05a4a Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Bruno Lustosa wrote: > > > >> 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. > 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? Alexander Skwar -- In Blythe, California, a city ordinance declares that a person must own at least two cows before he can wear cowboy boots in public. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list