Re: should inetd require rpcbind?

[Michael Richardson <mcr%sandelman.ca@localhost>]

>>>>> "ef" == ef  <Edgar> writes:
    ef> When RPC-based entries are enabled, inetd must be started after
    ef> rpcbind. 

okay.

    ef> Currently, this seems to happen by chance because inetd REQUIREs
    ef> DAEMON,  
    ef> and nfslocking is BEFORE: DAEMON and REQUIREs nfsd, which, in
    ef> turn REQUIREs  
    ef> rpcbind.

but, if I want to run inetd without RPC entries, I'd rather that rpcbind
didn't start, and that it wasn't required to be installed.

    ef> So, should inetd directly REQUIRE rpcbind?

If rpcbind isn't installed, or isn't started, will this cause it to fail?

    ef> Should nfslocking also explicitly REQUIRE rpcbind?

Yes.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr%sandelman.ottawa.on.ca@localhost http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ 
|device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
                       then sign the petition.