I just noticed that my F10 system does not even have xinetd installed. I can certainly install it if I want, but I was just suprised that it was not installed by default. Is there a movement to get rid of xinetd? It's just that I remember that the trend used to be to move more server processes to be added to the inetd config. Am I missing something?
I just noticed that my F10 system does not even have xinetd installed. I can certainly install it if I want, but I was just suprised that it was not installed by default. Is there a movement to get rid of xinetd? It's just that I remember that the trend used to be to move more server processes to be added to the inetd config. Am I missing something?
xinetd is available for F10...it depends, greatly, on what options you chose when you installed. For example, if you didn't select to install telnet or some other tools, it may not have opted to install xinetd.
Many services do not run, usually, from xinetd, such as ssh or httpd, though they could be made to do so
Was there something specific that you wanted to run, that would normally require xinetd?
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Mike Burger wrote:
I just noticed that my F10 system does not even have xinetd installed. I can certainly install it if I want, but I was just suprised that it was not installed by default. Is there a movement to get rid of xinetd? It's just that I remember that the trend used to be to move more server processes to be added to the inetd config. Am I missing something?
xinetd is available for F10...it depends, greatly, on what options you chose when you installed. For example, if you didn't select to install telnet or some other tools, it may not have opted to install xinetd.
Many services do not run, usually, from xinetd, such as ssh or httpd, though they could be made to do so
Was there something specific that you wanted to run, that would normally require xinetd?
The backup program amanda comes to mind, portions of its server utils are xinetd.d controlled.
-- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org
Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org
To be notified of updates to the web site, visit:
https://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update
or send a blank email message to:
site-update-subscribe@bubbanfriends.org
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Mike Burger wrote:
I just noticed that my F10 system does not even have xinetd installed. I can certainly install it if I want, but I was just suprised that it was not installed by default. Is there a movement to get rid of xinetd? It's just that I remember that the trend used to be to move more server processes to be added to the inetd config. Am I missing something?
xinetd is available for F10...it depends, greatly, on what options you chose when you installed. For example, if you didn't select to install telnet or some other tools, it may not have opted to install xinetd.
Many services do not run, usually, from xinetd, such as ssh or httpd, though they could be made to do so
Was there something specific that you wanted to run, that would normally require xinetd?
The backup program amanda comes to mind, portions of its server utils are xinetd.d controlled.
I'm guessing, then, that "yum install amanda" would then install xinetd as a prerequisite.
But, as noted, if Amanda was not selected at install time, like telnet server, etc., Anaconda would not have grabbed xinetd for installation.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:58:04AM -0400, Mike Burger wrote:
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Mike Burger wrote:
I just noticed that my F10 system does not even have xinetd installed. I can certainly install it if I want, but I was just suprised that it was not installed by default. Is there a movement to get rid of xinetd? It's just that I remember that the trend used to be to move more server processes to be added to the inetd config. Am I missing something?
xinetd is available for F10...it depends, greatly, on what options you chose when you installed. For example, if you didn't select to install telnet or some other tools, it may not have opted to install xinetd.
Many services do not run, usually, from xinetd, such as ssh or httpd, though they could be made to do so
Was there something specific that you wanted to run, that would normally require xinetd?
The backup program amanda comes to mind, portions of its server utils are xinetd.d controlled.
I'm guessing, then, that "yum install amanda" would then install xinetd as a prerequisite.
But, as noted, if Amanda was not selected at install time, like telnet server, etc., Anaconda would not have grabbed xinetd for installation.
The amanda package requires xinetd:
$ repoquery --requires amanda.i586 | grep xinetd xinetd
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:58:04AM -0400, Mike Burger wrote:
[...]
But, as noted, if Amanda was not selected at install time, like telnet server, etc., Anaconda would not have grabbed xinetd for installation.
The amanda package requires xinetd:
$ repoquery --requires amanda.i586 | grep xinetd xinetd
It seems that about half of the packages that place files in /etc/xinetd.d require xinetd and half do not. I'm not sure why that is in many cases.
$ repoquery --qf '%{name}' --whatprovides '/etc/xinetd.d/*' | \ sort -u | while read p; do repoquery --requires $p | \ grep -q xinet && echo "$p: YES" || echo "$p: NO" done
amanda: YES apg: NO authd: YES bitlbee: YES cups-lpd: YES cvs: NO ebhttpd: NO ebnetd: NO finger-server: YES firebird-classic: YES git-daemon: NO krb5-workstation-servers: YES ldminfod: NO leafnode: YES libident-tools: NO ltsp-server: NO ndtpd: NO node: YES nuttcp: NO proftpd: NO pure-ftpd: NO rsh-server: YES rsync: NO samba-swat: YES talk-server: YES telnet-server: YES tftp-server: YES uucp: NO uw-imap: YES vnc-ltsp-config: YES vtun: YES xinetd: YES
I'll try to ping the fedora-packaging list to get some opinions. Unless there are good reasons for not requiring xinetd, it seems to me that most packages dropping things into /etc/xinetd.d should bring in xinetd as well.
Todd Zullinger kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika tiistai, 26. toukokuuta 2009):
It seems that about half of the packages that place files in /etc/xinetd.d require xinetd and half do not. I'm not sure why that is in many cases.
A program that can run either as a stand-alone daemon or under xinetd doesn't _require_ xinetd.
Markku Kolkka wrote:
A program that can run either as a stand-alone daemon or under xinetd doesn't _require_ xinetd.
Sure. But some of the packages are being setup to xinetd by default, and it can be a pain to find that you install it and it does not work by default.
Take git-daemon for example, we don't ship an init script with it, we ship an xinetd configuration. But since git-daemon does not require xinetd, you can easily find that git-daemon doesn't run after downloading it and using chkconfig git on to try and get it working.
On 05/26/2009 07:47 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Markku Kolkka wrote:
A program that can run either as a stand-alone daemon or under xinetd doesn't _require_ xinetd.
Sure. But some of the packages are being setup to xinetd by default, and it can be a pain to find that you install it and it does not work by default.
Take git-daemon for example, we don't ship an init script with it, we ship an xinetd configuration. But since git-daemon does not require xinetd, you can easily find that git-daemon doesn't run after downloading it and using chkconfig git on to try and get it working.
You should file bug reports if that's the case.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You should file bug reports if that's the case.
Well, in the git-daemon case, I'm now one of the maintainers. So I can more easily fix the problem directly. ;)
I think there are some valid reasons for packages to drop files into /etc/xinet.d and not require xinetd, but whether each of the 14 or so packages that currently do so should be doing so needs looking into. I posted the repoquery results in case others who use the various packages want to look closer and perhaps file bugs where appropriate.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:21:28AM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You should file bug reports if that's the case.
Well, in the git-daemon case, I'm now one of the maintainers. So I can more easily fix the problem directly. ;)
I think there are some valid reasons for packages to drop files into /etc/xinet.d and not require xinetd, but whether each of the 14 or so packages that currently do so should be doing so needs looking into. I posted the repoquery results in case others who use the various packages want to look closer and perhaps file bugs where appropriate.
You're one of the maintainers for git packages? In that case, let me say a big public "thank you." :-)
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Mike Burger wrote:
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Mike Burger wrote:
I just noticed that my F10 system does not even have xinetd installed. I can certainly install it if I want, but I was just suprised that it was not installed by default. Is there a movement to get rid of xinetd? It's just that I remember that the trend used to be to move more server processes to be added to the inetd config. Am I missing something?
xinetd is available for F10...it depends, greatly, on what options you chose when you installed. For example, if you didn't select to install telnet or some other tools, it may not have opted to install xinetd.
Many services do not run, usually, from xinetd, such as ssh or httpd, though they could be made to do so
Was there something specific that you wanted to run, that would normally require xinetd?
The backup program amanda comes to mind, portions of its server utils are xinetd.d controlled.
I'm guessing, then, that "yum install amanda" would then install xinetd as a prerequisite.
I haven't the foggiest, Mike. I don't run amanda from an rpm, as has been discussed here at considerable length & with no little heat.
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Mike Burger wrote:
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Mike Burger wrote:
I just noticed that my F10 system does not even have xinetd installed. I can certainly install it if I want, but I was just suprised that it was not installed by default. Is there a movement to get rid of xinetd? It's just that I remember that the trend used to be to move more server processes to be added to the inetd config. Am I missing something?
xinetd is available for F10...it depends, greatly, on what options you chose when you installed. For example, if you didn't select to install telnet or some other tools, it may not have opted to install xinetd.
Many services do not run, usually, from xinetd, such as ssh or httpd, though they could be made to do so
Was there something specific that you wanted to run, that would normally require xinetd?
The backup program amanda comes to mind, portions of its server utils are xinetd.d controlled.
I'm guessing, then, that "yum install amanda" would then install xinetd as a prerequisite.
I haven't the foggiest, Mike. I don't run amanda from an rpm, as has been discussed here at considerable length & with no little heat.
Aaahhh...one of those TEHO situations.
I don't read every thread on this list...if I did, I'd never get any work done. ;-)
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Mike Burger wrote:
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Mike Burger wrote:
On Tuesday 26 May 2009, Mike Burger wrote:
I just noticed that my F10 system does not even have xinetd installed. I can certainly install it if I want, but I was just suprised that it was not installed by default. Is there a movement to get rid of xinetd? It's just that I remember that the trend used to be to move more server processes to be added to the inetd config. Am I missing something?
xinetd is available for F10...it depends, greatly, on what options you chose when you installed. For example, if you didn't select to install telnet or some other tools, it may not have opted to install xinetd.
Many services do not run, usually, from xinetd, such as ssh or httpd, though they could be made to do so
Was there something specific that you wanted to run, that would normally require xinetd?
The backup program amanda comes to mind, portions of its server utils are xinetd.d controlled.
I'm guessing, then, that "yum install amanda" would then install xinetd as a prerequisite.
I haven't the foggiest, Mike. I don't run amanda from an rpm, as has been discussed here at considerable length & with no little heat.
Aaahhh...one of those TEHO situations.
I don't read every thread on this list...if I did, I'd never get any work done. ;-)
Chuckle, neither would I.
-- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org
Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org
To be notified of updates to the web site, visit:
https://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update
or send a blank email message to:
site-update-subscribe@bubbanfriends.org
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 22:11 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
Is there a movement to get rid of xinetd? It's just that I remember that the trend used to be to move more server processes to be added to the inetd config.
As I recall, the trend was to move away from it, with individual scripts per service rather than an all encompassing inetd.
-
Gene Heskett -
Markku Kolkka -
Mike Burger -
Paul W. Frields -
Rahul Sundaram -
Steven W. Orr -
Tim -
Todd Zullinger