Bug#1038416: (no subject)

[Francesco P. Lovergine]

For reference, all this is a side effect of the proposed fix for #991266,
strangely not caught at the time.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 08:00:19PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>Bruno, that's right
>
>Unfortunately yes: originally the socket unit file was concepted as an example
>file to keep into the documentation and the Conflicts there does not 
>ensure that the .socket unit is ignored when the .service is enabled.
>
>The simplest workaroud is
>
>systemctl disable --now proftpd.socket
>systemctl enable --now proftpd.service
>
>but the initial installation is definitively broken, because proftpd 
>starts as a systemd socket, which is not intended by the distributed 
>proftpd.conf.
>
>Hilmar, the simplest thing to do is probably addig a mask/disable of proftpd.socket at postinst time,
>and an enable --now for the proftpd.service, when server should be run 
>in standalone mode (check via grepping proftpd.conf), after installing 
>systemd stuff in --no-enable --no-start mode.
>
>This is of course not completely fair because ignores xinetd/inetd setup.
>

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine