Around Today, "David Malone" wrote : DM> I think we may almost be there, and we've unearther problems with inetd DM> that were there anyway - but not as obvious without wrapping. While the DM> process is painful I think the end result may be OK.
As a user, I'd say that it would certainly be nice to have TCPWrapper support in the inetd, but there's no reason why it has to explicitly be made part of inetd. The support (after the patches Sheldon brought in) now is pretty good; is there any reason why the existing functionality should be extended ? A RedHat installation I used yonks ago had TCP/Wrappers installed as is on installation, and had no integration with the inetd; it was basically inetd and the TCP/Wrappers port installed. We're already better than that right now. --- Khetan Gajjar (!kg1779) * khe...@os.org.za http://khetan.os.org.za/ * Talk/Finger khe...@khetan.os.org.za FreeBSD enthusiast * http://www2.za.freebsd.org/ Reference : <19990618143617.a43...@bell.maths.tcd.ie> Date : Jun 18, 1999, 2:36pm To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
