Inetutils release

Jeff Bailey
Tue Apr 9 07:11:00 GMT 2002

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:09:43PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> > We're just getting ready for a new GNU Inetutils release, and I'm
> > trying my best to make sure that we run correctly on Cygwin.  I
> > can't tell who's the maintainer of the package so that I can let
> > (him/her) know when the release is ready.  Can someone please let
> > me know?

> I'm the maintainer but I'd like to keep this public.  

Sure, no prob.  I just thought this might be sufficiently 'off-topic'.

> FWIW, we're still using 1.3.2 with a lot of very intrusive changes.
> That's the reason I never tried to return the changes to the main
> line.

> Anyway, did you ever took a look into the Cygwin version?  It
> contains especially the change to allow inetd to run as Windows NT
> service and another important change is to get rid of the handling
> of uid 0 as being the superuser.

I haven't looked, sorry.  I've never paid attention to the Cygwin
package management system (other than being thankful to all of you
when you got one)

I'd rather not take the inetd change upstream yet, since inetd will
probably get rewritten.  I'm trying to get all of the code in there
(C) the FSF, and clean it all up to use current GNU coding standards.

One of my plans is to clean up all of the daemons so that they support
running in a standalone fashion.  Perhaps the Right Thing might be to
put 'NT Service' support in there, so that it becomes available to all
of inetutils.

How intrusive is the change to remove dependancy on UID 0 as the
Superuser?  Is this a coding practice that we should be adopting?

If you folks are using inetutils as a primary package, I'd like to try
and support you as best as I can by getting what you need integrated

"Frankly, trying to turn Windows into a decent educational software
development platform is about as fun as jumping naked into a pit of
rabid wolves."
 - As seen on slashdot

Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

More information about the Cygwin mailing list