Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:37:09 +0100
From:      vermaden <vermaden@interia.pl>
To:        Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>
Cc:        Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle
Message-ID:  <leftddgkzmhwocbwjcww@ekuc>
In-Reply-To: <20120124153538.60bc7707@mikmeyer-vm-fedora>
References:  <iwnlzjkfomlarmtwnxdp@dbyr> <vouizjmsitytcxxslori@esas> <20120122054903.GB12469@lonesome.com> <ntdeyjkxkymiidebfrvp@xczn> <20120124212347.GB3528@lonesome.com> <tnjaawbegrbakmzpigmz@wxqt> <20120124153538.60bc7707@mikmeyer-vm-fedora>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


"Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> pisze:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:05:55 +0100
> vermaden  wrote:
> > > > I have now filled these PR's here:
> > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D164432
> > > Thanks.  This makes these issues visible.
> > One of them is already closed ... with ZERO changes,
> > the reason from the person that closed it:
> >     "This is intended, as vsftpd is started by inetd"
> > ... great, but not ALL FreeBSD users want to use inetd,
> > why force them to compile it, is that one file that big
> > or painful that it can not be added to the port?
>=20
> I don't know why the PR was closed this way, but given that the bug
> report is simply a statement of a fact, without saying why you
> consider this fact to be a bug, or any other justification for wanting
> the change, closing it as "works as intended" seems like a perfectly
> reasonable response.
>=20
> If you had explained *why* you wanted that changed, and provide some
> justification for doing so (i.e. - point out that no inetd compliant
> program, so the default config of the port won't run on the default
> config of FreeBSD), you might have gotten a different response.
>=20
> Of course, that kind of discussion isn't really appropriate for a PR,
> since it's really a feature request. As such it deserves a bit of work
> finding out why it's that way to begin with. All of is covered in the
> problem-reports document already mentioned in this thread:
>=20
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/problem-reports/

I have sent this in reply to that cosed PR:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
... and if someone DOES NOT WANT to run it by INETD?

Why force people to (definitely needless) compile process
while this little option/small fail can make like so much
easier for everyone that do not use inetd? There are
multiple threads at FreeBSD Forums that this script is
missing from the package.

Also I do not no ANY OTHER package for daemon that
has RC_NG script as an option, all of them provide RC_NG
script by default, so that is what a user/admin is expecting.

Adding this file does not break INETD functionality
and only adds a sollution to start it by RC_NG script.

Its just one harmless file, why is it such a big problem?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----

Regards,
vermaden





































...



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?leftddgkzmhwocbwjcww>