From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jun 14 6:14:32 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54145152DB for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 06:14:24 -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 10tWZD-0002Es-00 for current@freebsd.org; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:14:23 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: current@freebsd.org Subject: inetd+libwrap bugfixes Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:14:22 +0200 Message-ID: <8609.929366062@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi folks, I'm following up to the discussion that's taken place recently over the issue of the base system not including a tcpd. I believe that quite a few folks want tcpd to make up for a few problems with our inetd's libwrap support. Those who fall into this category should try and comment on the diffs attached to PR 12097 . While it may be true that inetd's libwrap problems currently support the argument for a tcpd in the base system, our end goal is to offer an inetd that makes it completely unnecessary. This means that including a tcpd in the base system only to remove it later would be silly. Ciao, Sheldon. PS: It's amazing how many people have so much time for offering misguided arguments, yet so little for working on the issues. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message