Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:40:54 -0800 From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> To: Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com> Cc: Nathan Lawson <nlawson@statler.csc.calpoly.edu>, security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ownership of files/tcp_wrappers port Message-ID: <199601230840.AAA02300@precipice.shockwave.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:15:28 PST." <Pine.BSF.3.91.960122221256.811B-100000@haven.uniserve.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Not every piece of software out there that people deem worthwhile BELONGS
as part of the base system. Most people couldn't give a darn about
the logging or wrapping that either xinetd or tcp-wrappers perform, both
programs are welcome as ports, but not welcome as part of the core system,
thankyouverymuch.
We have PORTS for a reason, they're easy to install, what more can you ask for?
From: Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com>
Subject: Re: Ownership of files/tcp_wrappers port
On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Nathan Lawson wrote:
> Secondly, I was wondering why the tcp_wrappers distribution didn't make it
> into the source tree instead of being a port. It's a pretty small program
> that hasn't received too many changes recently. It's very worthwhile and
> libwrap.a can be linked into portmap and ypserv a lot more easily (even
> making this the default, perhaps).
Personally, I've always considered xinetd to the be the superior
solution to the access control problem, since it doesn't incur the extra
overhead of a fork+exec for every connection.
Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601230840.AAA02300>