From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 25 7: 5:50 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 3C34B14E16 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:05:23 -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 10xWbJ-0003mO-00; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 16:05:05 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Keith Stevenson Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Inetd and wrapping. In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:31:26 -0400." <19990625093126.D23508@homer.louisville.edu> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 16:05:05 +0200 Message-ID: <14531.930319505@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:31:26 -0400, Keith Stevenson wrote: > What is possible now that wasn't possible with tcpd from the ports > collection? Why incorporate libwrap (and make our inetd functionally > different from everyone else's) instead of bringing tcpd into the base > system? If we _don't_ use tcpd, we save an exec on every call to every wrapped service. I know we're all worried about creeping featurisms, but think about what we'll end up with here. We'll end up with an inetd that does _not_ wrap by default (discussed with jkh in private mail). So people wanting to carry on using tcpd stubbornly will be more than welcome to do so. We'll also end up with an inetd that _can_ wrap if it's told to (-w and -ww). So we end up offering a better super-server than we had before, with no backward compatibility problems, and no additional incompatibilities with other systems (I can't find an inetd that uses the -w flag for anything). > I realize that I'm more than a bit late in raising these issues. Not at all, so long as you don't manage to convince us that we've gone in the wrong direction. ;-) The additional option in inetd.conf is not something I want. However, it's something someone has made a legitimate public argument for, to which I can't come up with a decent rebuttal. The ``nowrap'' option in inetd.conf will be something specific to FreeBSD, I agree, but it's something you and me and the rest of the sane universe can happily do without -- you won't have to edit your inetd.conf just to cope with this FreeBSD-specific change. Ciaol, Sheldon (who is quickly learning that you can't please 'em all at all) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message