From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 28 2: 6:45 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from rucus.ru.ac.za (rucus.ru.ac.za [146.231.29.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A77B1541C for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 02:06:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nbm@rucus.ru.ac.za) Received: (qmail 67003 invoked by uid 1003); 28 Jun 1999 09:05:41 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:05:41 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner To: John Baldwin Cc: Aaron Smith , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Sheldon Hearn Subject: Re: Inetd and wrapping. Message-ID: <19990628110541.A65857@rucus.ru.ac.za> References: <199906251244.FAA30357@sigma.veritas.com> <199906280226.WAA09596@smtp3.erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <199906280226.WAA09596@smtp3.erols.com>; from John Baldwin on Sun, Jun 27, 1999 at 10:26:34PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun 1999-06-27 (22:26), John Baldwin wrote: > > if people have their undies in a wad over this, can't they compile > > inetd without LIBWRAP? > > Ahem.. > > Let's say I have two services, foo and bar, with food and > bard. I want to wrap food, but *NOT* bard and they are both in > /etc/inetd.conf. How do you propose to solve this with the internal > wrapping (which is a good idea, IMO as it eliminates an exec())? Run two copies of inetd? Seriously, if wrapping support can be tuned at runtime, and you can set up inetd to run with different configuration files (which you can), if those people who want to run both wrapped and non-wrapped services agree that this is an option, there needn't be a hack to do this sort of thing. Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner nbm@rucus.ru.ac.za To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message