Bug#1038416: (no subject)

[Francesco P. Lovergine]

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.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 04:21:41PM +0200, Bruno wrote:
>I guess that the systemd unit protfpd.socket should be disabled
>
>$ systemctl is-enabled proftpd.sockets 
>disabled
>
>
>May be the Debian package postinst script wrongly enabled it
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pkg-proftpd-maintainers mailing list
>Pkg-proftpd-maintainers at alioth-lists.debian.net
>https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-proftpd-maintainers
>

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine