Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 19:56:17 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White <dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu> To: Alex <garbanzo@hooked.net> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: inetd (vs. manpages) question Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980105195514.1402V-100000@gdi.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980104171217.2431D-100000@zippy.dyn.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Alex wrote: > In poking through the provided inetd.conf (and it's counterpart in the CVS > tree), I saw that an rpc entry looks like: > > rstatd/1-3 dgram rpc/udp wait root /usr/libexec/rpc.rstatd > rpc.rstatd (it has 7 parts). > > However in inetd(8): > > To specify an ONC RPC-based service, the entry would contain these > fields: > > service name/version > socket type > rpc/protocol > user[:group][/login-class] > server program > server program arguments > > notice it has 6 sections (it's missing the wait/nowait). I don't use rpc > services, so I don't know which is correct (I'm writing an X utility to go > through inetd.conf). Either way a small patch (which I'd be willing to > generate) is in order. Could someone enlighten me on which is correct? Inetd.conf is right. The man page needs to have the [no]wait field detailed. > El hombre mas brillante dijo una vez "Cuidado hay NT". (it's a nerd thing) Someone want to decode this? Considering the letters `NT' appear in there, it's either a lame comment promoting Winblows NT or a put-down in disguise. :-) Doug White | University of Oregon Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980105195514.1402V-100000>