From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 13 17:16:39 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 E5D011533F; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:16:30 -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 114Ciq-000CzJ-00; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:16:28 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: "Brian F. Feldman" Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: a BSD identd In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:12:49 -0400." Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 02:16:28 +0200 Message-ID: <49928.931911388@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:12:49 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote: > It's "out with the bad, in with the good." Pidentd code is pretty > terrible. Hi Brian, I let your comment above go at the time that you said it and I waited for Kevin Day to substantiate similar claims. Kevin very kindly took the time to submit a PR which has helped me demonstrate to him that the problems which he was seeing that led him to declare pidentd buggy were in fact caused by a bug (bugs?) in the version of inetd that he's running. So while I take to heart Mike Smith's comments ("I'm ... worried about ... where the seniority of a code entity is considered more significant than its functionality") I do think that this exercise serves no purpose as long as pidentd is doing its job properly. For detail on the inetd bugs causing apparent pidentd instability, I invite you to examine PR 12596. If you feel there are other problems with pidentd, I invite you to take Kevin's lead and file a PR. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message