From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Jul 13 21:51:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF6E153B9 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:51:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id VAA83572; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:50:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199907140450.VAA83572@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: "Brian F. Feldman" Subject: Re: ports/12596: pidentd is unstable in 3.2 and 4.0 Reply-To: "Brian F. Feldman" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/12596; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Brian F. Feldman" To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: Kevin Day , freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/12596: pidentd is unstable in 3.2 and 4.0 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:42:51 -0400 (EDT) On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:14:26 EST, Kevin Day wrote: > > > I can understand the stuck identd processes perhaps, from inetd, but.. I > > don't see how inetd can make identd return 'no user' when it shouldn't. :) > > Well let me know how identd behaves when you have a less buggy inetd. > :-) We already know the answer. Inetd will not cause this behavior in pidentd. There is no reason we should keep pidentd when a more natural solution is at hand! If you have to use pidentd, at least get rid of that ugly KVM crap. > > Ciao, > Sheldon. > Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ green@FreeBSD.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) | http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message