Bug 25292 – Bad service names chargen-udp, daytime-udp, echo-udp

Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.

Bug 25292 - Bad service names chargen-udp, daytime-udp, echo-udp

Summary:	Bad service names chargen-udp, daytime-udp, echo-udp

Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 24279

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Linux
Classification:	Retired
Component:	xinetd (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	7.1
Hardware:	All Linux

Priority	low Severity medium
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Trond Eivind Glomsrxd
QA Contact:	David Lawrence
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2001-01-30 06:56 EST by Göran Uddeborg
Modified:	2007-03-26 23:40 EDT (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2001-02-01 17:34:43 EST
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Göran Uddeborg 2001-01-30 06:56:43 EST

The configuration files in xinetd, at least up to 2.1.8.9pre13-5 use the
names chargen-udp, daytime-udp, and echo-udp for services in files in
/etc/xinetd.d.  These services are disabled by default, but if one tries to
enable them, the following error messages are reported:

Jan 30 11:16:34 uebn xinetd[29826]: No such internal service: chargen-udp
Jan 30 11:16:34 uebn xinetd[29826]: No such internal service: daytime-udp
Jan 30 11:16:34 uebn xinetd[29826]: No such internal service: echo-udp

Apparently, the names shoud be without the "-udp" suffix.

Comment 1 Trond Eivind Glomsrxd 2001-01-30 11:54:49 EST


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24729 ***

Comment 2 Göran Uddeborg 2001-01-31 18:52:09 EST

Bug 24729 seems to be about something completely different., doesn't it?  Is it
the reference to 24729 which is wrong, or did you mark the wrong bug as a
duplicate 24729?

Comment 3 Trond Eivind Glomsrxd 2001-01-31 18:59:15 EST

Doh... it's a duplicate of #24279, not #24729. Thanks for the catch.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24279 ***

Comment 4 Göran Uddeborg 2001-02-01 17:34:39 EST

Strange, I thought I searched (among other things) for bugs with "-udp" in the
description.  But you are quite right, I duplicated a previous report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.