From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Sep 10 15:04:45 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA00926
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from onizuka.tb.9715.org (pzeCtd+xHddoJgH5c3jnPaBQVaOtpsS7@onizuka.tb.9715.org [194.97.84.67])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA00919
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by onizuka.tb.9715.org
	via sendmail with stdio
	id <m0x8urQ-0006haC@onizuka.tb.9715.org>
	for ports@freebsd.org; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:03:44 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <m0x8urQ-0006haC@onizuka.tb.9715.org>
From: torstenb@onizuka.tb.9715.org (Torsten Blum)
Subject: Re: Major bogon in tcp_wrappers port.
In-Reply-To: <199709101631.SAA00382@greenpeace.grondar.za> from Mark Murray at "Sep 10, 97 06:31:11 pm"
To: mark@grondar.za (Mark Murray)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:03:44 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: andreas@klemm.gtn.com, ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Mark Murray wrote:

> > You're right, I'd vote for it as well.
> > On the other hand ... how much overhead does it bring ?
> 
> Not much. Physically, the files are not big. They do not take
> much time to compile. They _do_ add some latency to your daemon's 
> startup, except in the case where the app is linked against libwrap.
> 
> (Sendmail has such hooks, so does ssh (and I believe cvsupd as well?))

Uh, I tought this was a joke... 

Why should we move tcpwrapper to the base system ? I can't see an
advantage here.
tcpd is an easy "plug in" and one of it's "advantages" is that you just
have to change inetd.conf - no compile-time changes.

It's harder to configure hosts.{allow,deny} then changing inetd.conf.

> > Every time when an inetd related service is being started,
> > the (of course small) tcpd program has to be executed.
> 
> Sure. You can configure your system suchg that the wrappers are not 
> used, if you prefer.

Aeh, that's why we have the ports tree. If something is really optional
and you just have to change a config file why should it be moved to
the base system ?

> > And ... which inetd related server programs do we want to
> > protect, only some or all ?
> 
> Negotiable. I kinda like the idea if two files - inetd.conf.dist and 
> inetd.conf.wrap.dist, and some install option to choose one.

We don't need to have tcpwrapper in the base system to provide an
example config file.

confused

 -tb