[blfs-dev] TCP Wrapper
I was looking at TCP Wrapper and there is really no use for it on modern Linux kernels. It's real purpose were monitoring and filtering network access to some services iirc. But today Netfilter and Iptables do that and lot more, so I suggest we remove it and don't even mention it. It's way too old, unmaintained and imho unnecesary today. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] TCP Wrapper
Armin K. wrote: I was looking at TCP Wrapper and there is really no use for it on modern Linux kernels. It's real purpose were monitoring and filtering network access to some services iirc. But today Netfilter and Iptables do that and lot more, so I suggest we remove it and don't even mention it. It's way too old, unmaintained and imho unnecesary today. I agree that it's unnecessary and I generally do not install it, but I also think that many people expect it. Here is a list of packages that reference it: gdm esound nfs-utils rpcbind stunnel openssh sane lprng cups openldap exim sendmail mysql vsftpd It is a very old program. The date I see is 1997. On the other hand, I don't think it is any effort to just leave it in the book. What do others think? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] TCP Wrapper
On Thursday 28 June 2012 14:05:45 Bruce Dubbs wrote: Armin K. wrote: I was looking at TCP Wrapper and there is really no use for it on modern Linux kernels. It's real purpose were monitoring and filtering network access to some services iirc. But today Netfilter and Iptables do that and lot more, so I suggest we remove it and don't even mention it. It's way too old, unmaintained and imho unnecesary today. I agree that it's unnecessary and I generally do not install it, but I also think that many people expect it. Here is a list of packages that reference it: gdm esound nfs-utils rpcbind stunnel openssh sane lprng cups openldap exim sendmail mysql vsftpd It is a very old program. The date I see is 1997. On the other hand, I don't think it is any effort to just leave it in the book. What do others think? To reduce the complexity of the book, I think the more old obsolete packages we remove the better. If no packages require TCP-wrappers, I suggest we remove it. -Ragnar- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] TCP Wrapper
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 09:42:26PM +0200, Ragnar Thomsen wrote: On Thursday 28 June 2012 14:05:45 Bruce Dubbs wrote: Armin K. wrote: I was looking at TCP Wrapper and there is really no use for it on modern Linux kernels. It's real purpose were monitoring and filtering network access to some services iirc. But today Netfilter and Iptables do that and lot more, so I suggest we remove it and don't even mention it. It's way too old, unmaintained and imho unnecesary today. It is a very old program. The date I see is 1997. On the other hand, I don't think it is any effort to just leave it in the book. What do others think? To reduce the complexity of the book, I think the more old obsolete packages we remove the better. If no packages require TCP-wrappers, I suggest we remove it. I've always built it since I first had a home network, in the belief that it was expected. Most distros still carry it, but I see that Arch dropped it last year, so I suppose we can do the same. Can't say I'm in a rush to work out what to put into iptables scripts to replace it, but that's not a reason to keep it in the book. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] TCP Wrapper
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:42:22 +0100 Ragnar Thomsen rthoms...@gmail.com wrote: To reduce the complexity of the book, I think the more old obsolete packages we remove the better. If no packages require TCP-wrappers, I suggest we remove it. I agree Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
