From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Nov 10 13:58:10 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA07525 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 13:58:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA07520 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 13:58:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA16959; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:48:13 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199611102148.OAA16959@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: virtual hosting with inetd To: proff@suburbia.net (Julian Assange) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:48:13 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199611090643.RAA23191@suburbia.net> from "Julian Assange" at Nov 9, 96 05:43:35 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Does anyone have any other comments on the patch > I produced? Terry, did I address yours? > Is it commitable? Well, you addressed mine... I didn't necessarily agree with all your points, but the one about external daemons was a good one. The state question I think is still valid, escpecially for long conf files. I still don't see why if you are ging to implement an "#include" type syntax for files that they have to have the first line a bind line; an #include is an #include. I also find it a little strange that you just don't implement a #include keyword instead of implying it with a sh "<" construct. Other than that, xinetd is already in ports, and I thought that inetd was maintained at Cray along with telnet and the other services... Other than that, no, I have no problems. 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.