From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Jun 11 13:57:16 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from misha.cisco.com (misha.cisco.com [171.69.206.50])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A24615315
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from mi@misha.cisco.com)
Received: (from mi@localhost)
	by misha.cisco.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id QAA81605;
	Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:56:37 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from mi)
Message-Id: <199906112056.QAA81605@misha.cisco.com>
Subject: Re: tcp_wrapper in contrib and ports?
In-Reply-To: <19990611134745.B28852@nuxi.com> from "David O'Brien" at "Jun 11, 1999 01:47:45 pm"
To: obrien@NUXI.com
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:56:37 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Reply-To: mi@aldan.algebra.com
From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL52 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

David O'Brien once wrote:

> > Are not  there any other uses  for it? Like "xinetd"?  If everything
> > else (the libwrap, the man pages) is there, why not install the tcpd
> > as well?
> 
> BECAUSE IT IS NOT NEEDED by the base system.

It's Ok, no  need to yell. There  are a number of things,  not needed by
the system, that are in the system.  Not just the fortran and xtend, but
also, say, bc(1) or cal(1). It may be usefull, and it requires no effort
to have -- in fact, it probably needed some effort to be ripped out. But
most importantly, it is hard to  _add_ gracefuly to an installed system.
Porter will have to work hard to make the tcp_wrapper port work with the
system libwrap, while having two libwrap-s is just plain ugly.

	-mi


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message