Randy McMurchy wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote these words on 12/15/12 20:39 CST: >> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 08:16:12PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: >>> No big deal, I was just trying to find out the reasoning. >>> >> Please see the BLFS-dev archives from June 2012 under the title >> 'TCP Wrapper'. I agree with your comments, but I've managed to get >> iptables configured to replace it and so I'm happy to live without >> it. Put the emphasis on 'IPTables [is] more robust'. > > But why can't we give users the choice? Wrappers still builds without > errors and works as it was intended. There is no maintenance involved > from a BLFS editor perspective. For these reasons I wonder why it was > removed and marked as deprecated. Other distros still ship it, right? > > Again, I'm not arguing, just trying to discover the reasoning for > removing a package that builds fine, is functional, and was written by > one of the fathers of Unix and free software. The package (unlike most) > has stood the test of time. :-)
tcpwrappers just gets in the way. For -support issues, it causes more problems then it solves. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
