Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:17:52 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> To: Doug <Studded@gorean.org> Cc: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Inetd and wrapping. Message-ID: <12784.929978272@axl.noc.iafrica.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:58:58 MST." <376E5332.2CA33A5E@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:58:58 MST, Doug wrote: > When exactly was it made the default? Prior to 3.2-Release, or after? > It's never (ok, rarely) too late to undo a bad decision. If the change > happened after the latest -Release, by all means, back it out. Cvsweb says it happened _before_ 3.2-RELEASE. That's why I plan to leave wrapping turned on by default and providing command-line options for turning it off. If I had a solid support on a decision to reverse the behaviour exhibited in 3.2-RELEASE, I'd do it. :-) > It would be more traditionally unix-like to have a flag for wrapping a > service (on by default, or not, see above) and a flag for not wrapping. For > instance I could start inetd with the -w flag to wrap all services, and > then disable one service with a -d for don't wrap, and vv. I agree that -w for "enable wrapping" would be preferable. I don't agree that an exception option would be cool at all, so that's not something I'll be doing myself. Nevertheless, my understanding of "the FreeBSD way" leads me to believe that it's a bad idea to reverse the behaviour established for a stable release without solid support. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?12784.929978272>