From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Jun 22 1:20: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57DF61511A for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:20:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id BAA84773; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:20:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906220820.BAA84773@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Sheldon Hearn Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: misc/11796: Bad lines in 3.2-RELEASE inetd.conf] Reply-To: Sheldon Hearn Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR misc/11796; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Sheldon Hearn To: Doug Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG, alex@wnm.net Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: misc/11796: Bad lines in 3.2-RELEASE inetd.conf] Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:17:25 +0200 On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:10:47 MST, Doug wrote: > In fact, the man page is correct, however the inetd code currently > has an outdated version of the canonical name. Thus, at minimum the > man page should be udpated to reflect this reality. A better solution > would be to remove the hard coded values in the code, and fix the > config file. It took me a bit of playing to find the problem, since the PR doesn't say " if I use service name ``auth'' instead of ``inetd'', I get the following error message from inetd: internal service auth unknown " That's the kind of thing I was looking for when I asked you (twice) to send a useful "How-To-Repeat". It doesn't help that people who've run into the problem understand the vague description provided, because I haven't run into it. Now that I understand the problem, I'd like to put forward this proposal: The manual pages for services(5), inetd(8) and inetd.conf(5) are adequate if inetd accepts both canonical service names _and_ aliases. Therefore a healthy, backward-compatible change that is unlikely to accept existing users is to teach inetd to understand service name aliases. I'm not yet saying that this is possible, but I am saying that I'll look into it if it'd make you happy. Whatever your preference is, I'd suggest dropping freebsd-hackers from further discussion. Now that we all understand each other, it's probably more appropriate that the conversation continue on PR feedback only. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message