From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Jan 10 13:17:23 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from parsons.rh.rit.edu (res112b-165.rh.rit.edu [129.21.112.165]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09181532A for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:17:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mfisher@csh.rit.edu) Received: from mfisher (helo=localhost) by parsons.rh.rit.edu with local-esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 127mBc-000I2U-00; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:17:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:17:11 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Fisher X-Sender: mfisher@res112b-165.rh.rit.edu To: Vivek Khera Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: question on necessity of tcp_wrappers port In-Reply-To: <14458.5568.152019.715536@onceler.kcilink.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Vivek Khera wrote: > It seems to me that since 3.4 has tcp wrappers integrated into it > (inetd has support built in, and libwrap is there) that the > tcp_wrappers port is unnecessary. It really confused me when I did > the install because the tcp_wrappers package was offered to be > installed during the installation, and was not marked as "obsolete" in > any way. Unless I am in error, the functionality of the port's tcpd binary (useful for logging) is not available from the FreeBSD version of tcp_wrappers. - -- Mike "The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." -- Murray Rothbard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0i Comment: Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBOHpMWOG+Jfm/z6tNEQIlGACeIGuLzYSZk6M0bSQLD1Fe1p4iNAkAoJD1 /2wJEquAgnk9Xu+Os/cM8uwG =gpK+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message