From owner-freebsd-security Tue Jan 23 00:42:19 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA15576 for security-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:42:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from precipice.shockwave.com (precipice.shockwave.com [171.69.108.33]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA15571 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:42:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.shockwave.com (localhost.shockwave.com [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.shockwave.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA02300; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:40:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199601230840.AAA02300@precipice.shockwave.com> To: Tom Samplonius cc: Nathan Lawson , security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ownership of files/tcp_wrappers port In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:15:28 PST." Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:40:54 -0800 From: Paul Traina Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk 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 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