From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 18 6:36:21 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D9E615378 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 06:36:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie) Received: from bell.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP id ; 18 Jun 99 14:36:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:36:17 +0100 From: David Malone To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Inetd and wrapping. Message-ID: <19990618143617.A43897@bell.maths.tcd.ie> References: <9906181411.aa23134@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> <40223.929712603@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <40223.929712603@axl.noc.iafrica.com>; from Sheldon Hearn on Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 03:30:03PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 03:30:03PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > 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. :-( I think we may almost be there, and we've unearther problems with inetd that were there anyway - but not as obvious without wrapping. While the process is painful I think the end result may be OK. David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message