Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:43:11 -0800 From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> Cc: Nathan Lawson <nlawson@statler.csc.calpoly.edu>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ownership of files/tcp_wrappers port Message-ID: <199601230843.AAA02318@precipice.shockwave.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Jan 1996 08:27:30 %2B0200." <199601230627.IAA25371@grumble.grondar.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>
Subject: Re: Ownership of files/tcp_wrappers port
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).
I think this is a damn fine idea. Seconded. Any ISP who does not have
wrappers, and any user who does not consider their use when connecting
to the 'net has a serious problem.
I totally and completely disagree. I do not want to be bound by your
idea of what's proper for the core part of the system. That's why we
have a generic source distribution and you can personalize your system
to your hearts content.
Read: I will wish seriously bad karma on anyone who unilaterally bloats
out the system with the wrapper code. There is NO good reason to
make it anything other than a port -- which makes it OPTIONAL to
install and easy to track 3rd party changes.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601230843.AAA02318>