[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: DAEMON vs in.DAEMON
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:51:44 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.20i

On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 06:32:30AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 03:12:22PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > When Jeff checked in his new Makefiles, he changed binary target names 
> > > from
> > > in.talkd to talkd etc.
> > > 
> > > Is this really what we want?  It seems to be custom to name them in.talkd
> > > etc.  Should I change it back?
> > 
> > netkit builds them as telnetd, too, so this seems to be packaging policy.
> Actually, I've never understood what the in. was for, nor could I find
> any explanation.  I did it as an experiment at first (when it ws still
> devnull and I working on it) so that it wouldn't overwrite the other
> daemons on my system.

I think it's a convention for daemons started by tcpd.
> I don't actually care what they're named, now that I'm using package
> system.  They have, however, been this way for a long time now.

Yes, the Debian package is severly out of date.  Now that I know that it is
related to tcpd, I don't think we need to change the name.

I want to make a quick update for the Hurd inetutils packages, and so that
difference came to my attention.  (I leave the real, big update to you).


`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org address@hidden
Marcus Brinkmann              GNU    http://www.gnu.org    address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]