Date: 28 Dec 2001 00:50:48 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> Subject: Re: tcpd not installed on 4.5-PRERELEASE Message-ID: <m34rmcrzmv.fsf@emma1.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <200112271938.fBRJc8N35049@cwsys.cwsent.com> References: <200112271938.fBRJc8N35049@cwsys.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> writes: > > I might have a different super-server than FreeBSD's inetd (tcpserver > > from DJB's ucspi-tcp!), or I might want to run a service without libwrap > > for efficiency reasons -- in that case, I'd have to run tcpd explicitly > > for the other services. > > IMO, that's why we have the tcp_wrapper port. One more followup: I cannot understand this decision. Situation: 1. a mutilated version of tcp_wrappers has been merged into the base system 2. the port refuses to build because tcp_wrappers (tcpd.h, actually) is part of the base system Why cannot either tcp_wrappers be fully merged OR the ports tree allow the build and warn instead? That's mind-bogglingly inconvenient. What's so important about leaving out tcpd and forbidding the port at the same time? Everything of tcp_wrappers is there, except this tiny tcpd program (size 2549 Bytes, 6123 on-disk) and its man page. Sure, inetd -wW gets along well without it, unless I want a service without tcp_wrappers -- Oops. If I want hosts.allow for tcpserver or something, I need to meddle with the ports stuff to be able to use tcpd. This needs fixing. -- Matthias Andree "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m34rmcrzmv.fsf>