From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jun 18  6:30:19 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9913F15378
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 06:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com)
	by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
	id 10uyia-000ASm-00; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:30:04 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Cc: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: Inetd and wrapping. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:11:26 +0100."
             <9906181411.aa23134@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> 
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:30:03 +0200
Message-ID: <40223.929712603@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:11:26 +0100, David Malone wrote:

> Sheldon and myself have been looking at the wrapping support in inetd, and
> I'd be interested to hear what people think on the following issues.

Is the general consensus that we absolutely must have wrapper support
built into inetd? What we've got right now isn't doing a fantastic job,
and trying to wedge in the job tcpd did before is getting progressively
uglier. :-(

Ciao,
Sheldon.


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