From owner-freebsd-stable  Mon Jan 10  9:24:20 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from kci.kciLink.com (kci.kciLink.com [204.117.82.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2BC5615224; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:24:17 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from khera@kciLink.com)
Received: from onceler.kcilink.com (onceler.kciLink.com [204.117.82.2])
	by kci.kciLink.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7480CE8A5; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:24:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from khera@localhost)
	by onceler.kcilink.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08671;
	Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:24:16 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from khera@kci.kcilink.com)
From: Vivek Khera <khera@kciLink.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14458.5568.152019.715536@onceler.kcilink.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:24:16 -0500 (EST)
To: ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: question on necessity of tcp_wrappers port
X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

It seems to me that since 3.4 has tcp wrappers integrated into it
(inetd has support built in, and libwrap is there) that the
tcp_wrappers port is unnecessary.  It really confused me when I did
the install because the tcp_wrappers package was offered to be
installed during the installation, and was not marked as "obsolete" in
any way.

Perhaps it should be marked unnecessary or "for backwards compat
only"?


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