From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jun 19  9:43:15 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 8AE3B14F5C
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie)
Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP
          id <aa07126@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>; 19 Jun 99 17:43:10 +0100 (BST)
To: Khetan Gajjar <khetan@os.org.za>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Inetd and wrapping. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:58:12 +0200."
             <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906182353290.35942-100000@chain.freebsd.os.org.za> 
X-Request-Do: 
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 17:43:10 +0100
From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>
Message-ID:  <9906191743.aa07126@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> The support (after the patches Sheldon brought in) now is 
> pretty good; is there any reason why the existing functionality should be
> extended ?

We should support atleast as much as tcpd did. I think the only
thing we're missing now is wrapping the first connection of a
udp/wait service and then inetd can do as much as tcpd could.
(Wrapping of internal services is a bonus over what tcpd can do
already).

I'd be happy with just adding support for wrapping udp stuff and
adding a command line flag which turns off wrapping to keep purists
happy. I just wanted to see what the general opinion was.

	David.


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