Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:30:14 GMT From: =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEvDtm5pZw==?= <bjoern.koenig@alpha-tierchen.de> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: conf/74004: [PATCH] add fam support to inetd.conf Message-ID: <200502202130.j1KLUEpW094040@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR conf/74004; it has been noted by GNATS. From: =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEvDtm5pZw==?= <bjoern.koenig@alpha-tierchen.de> To: "'Jose M Rodriguez'" <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> Cc: <freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: conf/74004: [PATCH] add fam support to inetd.conf Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:28:27 +0100 Jose M Rodriguez wrote: > with this logic, why we distribute an /etc/inetd.conf? all=20 > the entries are commented out. It wasn't logic; just an opinion. It's contestable. You didn't provide = logic either, because you claimed that fam is widely used, therefore = let's add an default line to inetd.conf. I suppose this is much more = true as long as we refer to libfam, but this use doesn't require inetd. = Whatever. I think that adding an appropriate line to inetd.conf won't = hurt as much as don't do it, but I agree with you that fam is a good = candidate for being added to inetd.conf at this time. > And is less error prone uncomment a line that copy and paste=20 > while preserve tabs. It doesn't matter, because spaces are are valid seperators too. Regards Bj=C3=B6rn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502202130.j1KLUEpW094040>