inetutils

DJ Lucas dj_me at swbell.net
Thu Oct 10 09:17:10 PDT 2002


"Tushar T" wrote in message
> Mainly I moved becoz inetutils is better maintained and compiles cleanly
> on gcc3. Other than that I didn't see any difference in the system
> operation (and there shouldn't be). BTW, I don't use syslogd anymore,
> moved to metalog. The only con I see is that it doesn't have any
> /etc/services or /etc/protocols file but there is a hint which handles
> that (and is more complete anyways).
>

If you are talking bout including inetutils in the book, I don't think it'd
be a big
deal to create a properly formatted version of IANA's protocols and
services in some subdir of lfs-bootscripts-X.XX.tar.bz2, as that is an
archive maintained by LFS anyways, and has to be downloaded.  Perhaps
these could be included wether a switch to inetutils is made or not.

FYI:  A switch to inetutils was suggested a couple of times before and was
quickly shotdown as there was really no pressing reason to change.

> --
> Tushar Teredesai
> LFS ID: 1377
> http://tushar.lfsforum.org/
>

DJ Lucas


-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list