Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:26:34 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jobaldwi@vt.edu> To: Aaron Smith <aaron-fbsd@arctic.org> Cc: Doug <DougGuy@dal.net>, David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> Subject: Re: Inetd and wrapping. Message-ID: <199906280226.WAA09596@smtp3.erols.com> In-Reply-To: <199906251244.FAA30357@sigma.veritas.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25-Jun-99 Aaron Smith wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:14:48 +0200, Sheldon Hearn writes: >>I think I prefer the suggestion I saw from someone else, which would >>allow >> >>ftp stream tcp nowait/10/10/wrap root ... >> >>This can be done in such a way as to be backward compatible. Looks like >>something for the week-end, if I can convince my wife that it's a good >>idea. :-) > > could you please restate the argument for this? i still haven't heard a > decent reason for this sort of conf format perturbation. every small whack > like this makes freebsd weirder to administrate -- there is a value to > sharing the same inetd.conf format with lots of other platforms. > > if people have their undies in a wad over this, can't they compile inetd > without LIBWRAP? Ahem.. Let's say I have two services, foo and bar, with food and bard. I want to wrap food, but *NOT* bard and they are both in /etc/inetd.conf. How do you propose to solve this with the internal wrapping (which is a good idea, IMO as it eliminates an exec())? > aaron --- John Baldwin <jobaldwi@vt.edu> -- http://members.freedomnet.com/~jbaldwin/ PGP Key: http://members.freedomnet.com/~jbaldwin/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906280226.WAA09596>