Setting up leafnode (1.11.8-1) ...
	Configuring service:
	---------------------

	There are multiple entries in /etc/inetd.conf for the 'nntp' service.

	Please confirm that you agree to disable these entries.

	Disable inetd entries? no


	Configuring service:
	---------------------

	There are multiple entries in /etc/inetd.conf for the 'nntp' service.

	Ignore multiple entries and continue without changes? yes

The two entries are needed to support both ipv4 and ipv6. So it's surprising
that update-inetd wants to disable them.

Hi Joey,
[..]

Unfortunately update-inetd is broken by design in that, by default, it
distinguishes services based only on service names. I've described the problem
at

http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep9/#index2h1

where I also proposed a design for an update-inetd replacement, currently work
in progress:

http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/reconf-inetd.git;a=tree;h=720a5c1761de2a29a2c3ea1779a567a75592bc46;hb=720a5c1761de2a29a2c3ea1779a567a75592bc46

Feedback on the new design is welcome. In the meantime, we're stuck with bugs
like this.

cheers,
sez

Hi,

reconf-inetd is the replacement of update-inetd, as per DEP9. Unlike past
proposals for replacing update-inetd, this one is actually implemented and
available in experimental.

This should be of interest for services that

    - require separate inetd.conf entries for ipv4/ipv6 versions

    - have more than one implementation in the archive (eg. proftpd vs
      ftpd-ssl)

Please read sections IV & V of DEP9 on how to transition your package, and
let me know of any issues.

To test it, in a nutshell:

    - make your package install xinetd.conf(5) fragment files in
      /usr/share/reconf-inetd/, one file per service that needs an entry in
      inetd.conf

    - run reconf-inetd as root

    - check whether an entry has been added in /etc/inetd.conf.

reconf-inetd will not add inetd.conf entries for services whose server path is
non-existent, or whose protocol/service name/server path combination matches
an existing inetd.conf entry

For more details see DEP9 and the feature files at

http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/reconf-inetd.git;a=tree;f=features

cheers,
sez

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
leafnode, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 638791@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@debian.org> (supplier of updated leafnode package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 12:15:56 +0100
Source: leafnode
Architecture: source
Version: 1.12.0-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@debian.org>
Changed-By: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@debian.org>
Closes: 638791 660569 719749 1027788
Changes:
 leafnode (1.12.0-2) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * Install a socket-enabled systemd unit:
    - The unit is not enabled by default: there's no clear consensus
      in Debian whether socket-enabled systemd generally phases out
      inetd invocation at this point and non-systemd continues to
      see support still.
    - here's no longer any registration of inetd/nntp service
      in postinst
    - Instead provide a README.Debian describing the options of either
      enabling the systemd unit or instead to configure inetd instead
    - Demote update-inetd, openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver, tcpd
      dependencies to Suggests:
    - Drop the debconf questions related to tcpd (and also the obsolete
      question about PPP (debconf will eventually be removed entirely
      at some point, it serves hardly any purpose other than setting
      the upstream news server, which can be replaced by simply editing
      a config file)
     (Closes: #1027788, #660569, #719749, #638791)
Checksums-Sha1:
 537ec5ad583cd7eff120d420f6adf0a11f7e063a 1848 leafnode_1.12.0-2.dsc
 d17f8dc51bad8b53a73746b61adc5ac1b71cbf84 47316 leafnode_1.12.0-2.debian.tar.xz
 e420d5c6697d405d2f1e70dd3f347077b917b0b2 6439 leafnode_1.12.0-2_amd64.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
 b0318b2fee409fdc7d0fecb7f6b8e8dbac23bd84ba1e555b14e43f35072a05a5 1848 leafnode_1.12.0-2.dsc
 0bd6362d0ca33894b53418d4e32fd56efd00841d13212b27c97eddeb35f487e1 47316 leafnode_1.12.0-2.debian.tar.xz
 693505efbacc8ce8d1688f75d7f019243d1292521dd311cee7e43420bfb25ad9 6439 leafnode_1.12.0-2_amd64.buildinfo
Files:
 64cabd74f558429548a1f1e1be0d80d3 1848 news optional leafnode_1.12.0-2.dsc
 5e7997e067b644f9140fae1298bdce5e 47316 news optional leafnode_1.12.0-2.debian.tar.xz
 08540790fb181f61a71220fd928253ff 6439 news optional leafnode_1.12.0-2_amd64.buildinfo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=YNsp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi!

This seems to still be a valid concern for update-inetd. I think this
was probably closed in error as showing up in leafnode bugs page due
to the affects. Given that the new leafnode version does not use
update-inetd anymore, I'm removing the affects instead, which should
stop cluttering the leafnode bug page.

Thanks,
Guillem

That was in fact accidentally closed, sorry for that.

Cheers,
        Moritz