[distcc] distcc 2.11.1 released

[Martin Pool]

On  8 Oct 2003, Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Martin Pool wrote:
> 
> > distcc 2.11.1 is out.  Thanks to everyone who sent feedback or
> > corrections.
> 
> Hey Martin,
> 
> I recently discovered that xinetd.conf (or xinetd.d) allows to add 
> services which are not listed in /etc/services by adding:
> 
> 	type            = UNLISTED
> 
> This means that I don't have to add the distcc port to /etc/services. 
> If Red Hat releases an update of their setup package the /etc/services is 
> replaced by their default one and distcc wouldn't work anymore from 
> xinetd.

OK, I'll add that to the example.  But to me this is just another
reason not to use xinetd for this, in addition to distccd not being
able to regulate the number of connections.

> So this is certainly something I'm going to add, but I wonder whether you 
> rather have the package still adding the distcc port to /etc/services 
> (eg. so that it shows up nicely in netstat -at) or leave that up to the 
> distribution ?

In Debian we fixed this by filing a bug against the package that owns
/etc/services ("netbase" or some such), asking for it to be added.
Since 3632 is now in the IANA canonical services file, having it
missing really is a bug.  

Perhaps you can do that for the new Red Hat distribution?

On older systems -- I don't know, how 'safe' is it to modify these
files?  If it would cause problems with upgrading later then I would
just leave it out.  It's purely cosmetic.  distcc doesn't care.

> PS You might want to add the example distcc.xinetd to README.packaging for 
> others.

I'd really prefer that packages used --daemon not inetd.

Thanks for packaging distcc.

-- 
Martin 

If you think "Linux will never be suitable for general use until
someone implements this feature I want" articles are bad, try
"Linux was unsuitable for general use until we released proprietary
software that has these features we say you need" press releases.
	-- Don Marti