Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:39:07 +1000 From: "Andrew Reilly" <a.reilly@lake.com.au> To: Dom Mitchell <Dom.Mitchell@palmerharvey.co.uk> Cc: Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tcp_wrapper in contrib and ports? Message-ID: <19990608093907.A85247@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <E10r1QM-000BAj-00@voodoo.pandhm.co.uk>; from Dom Mitchell on Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 04:34:53PM %2B0100 References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9906071121020.279-100000@penelope.skunk.org> <E10r1QM-000BAj-00@voodoo.pandhm.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 04:34:53PM +0100, Dom Mitchell wrote: > On 7 June 1999, Ben Rosengart proclaimed: > > I am curious as to why tcp_wrappers are present in /usr/src/contrib as > > well as in the ports collection. Can someone please enlighten me? TIA. > > To support 2.2.x users? Maybe 3.x users actually want tcpd too. I'm running -STABLE, and qmail, and discovered that tcp_wrappers was somehow part of the system when things started misbehaving. Oddly, tcpd itself is _not_ built by the system, it seems. The libwrap that is built (or at least the man page for tcpdchk) seems to think that the control files hosts.access and hosts.deny still live in /usr/local/etc/, rather than where you would expect a system component to put them: /etc. My current source of confusion is with the tcpd from ports, which doesn't mention what level it is syslogging at: I can't find any of it's log messages... -- Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990608093907.A85247>