From owner-freebsd-ports  Tue Jan 11  1:40:39 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CC2B71543A; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:40:32 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com)
	by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.11 #1)
	id 127xmm-000PVx-00; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:40:20 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: Vivek Khera <khera@kciLink.com>
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: question on necessity of tcp_wrappers port 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:24:16 EST."
             <14458.5568.152019.715536@onceler.kcilink.com> 
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:40:19 +0200
Message-ID: <98077.947583619@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org



On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:24:16 EST, 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.

I think it may as well be left lying around in case it still works for
RELENG_2_2 users.  However, I do think that it should be marked broken
for everything that has a /usr/include/tcpd.h .

Ciao,
Sheldon.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message