Alex Charalabidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 21 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > The PR is wrong. Sheldon is right. It *does* work the way it ships. If
> > he experienced problems, I bet the real bug was that he edited
> > inetd.conf, HUPed inetd, and hit the "HUP clobbers the servic
Alex Charalabidis writes:
> On 21 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > The PR is wrong. Sheldon is right. It *does* work the way it ships. If
> > he experienced problems, I bet the real bug was that he edited
> > inetd.conf, HUPed inetd, and hit the "HUP clobbers the service table"
> > bug.
>
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:10:47 MST, Doug wrote:
> In fact, the man page is correct, however the inetd code currently
> has an outdated version of the canonical name. Thus, at minimum the
> man page should be udpated to reflect this reality. A better solution
> would be to remove the hard coded va
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:10:47 MST, Doug wrote:
> In fact, the man page is correct, however the inetd code currently
> has an outdated version of the canonical name. Thus, at minimum the
> man page should be udpated to reflect this reality. A better solution
> would be to remove the hard coded val
On 21 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "It doesn't work with the conf file that came with the system, but
> > it does work if I change the conf file to match the documentation" is
> > pretty good content in my book. Obviously he doesn't include infor
On 21 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Doug writes:
> > "It doesn't work with the conf file that came with the system, but
> > it does work if I change the conf file to match the documentation" is
> > pretty good content in my book. Obviously he doesn't include information
> > on how to
Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "It doesn't work with the conf file that came with the system, but
> it does work if I change the conf file to match the documentation" is
> pretty good content in my book. Obviously he doesn't include information
> on how to repeat the problem in a verifia
Doug writes:
> "It doesn't work with the conf file that came with the system, but
> it does work if I change the conf file to match the documentation" is
> pretty good content in my book. Obviously he doesn't include information
> on how to repeat the problem in a verifiable way, but that do
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:42:46 MST, Doug wrote:
>
> > [...] there is an outstanding PR that shows it
> > doesn't work for everybody, and there is absolutely no justification for
> > leaving an example in the conf file that conflicts with the man pa
By the way, I'd recommend all -CURRENT users, after making world, make a
new copy of pidentd. The code to grovel through the kernel to find socket
info is MUCH less sickening now, so identd is less of a performance hit
and less likely to fail due to race conditions.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:42:46 MST, Doug wrote:
>
> > [...] there is an outstanding PR that shows it
> > doesn't work for everybody, and there is absolutely no justification for
> > leaving an example in the conf file that conflicts with the man pag
By the way, I'd recommend all -CURRENT users, after making world, make a
new copy of pidentd. The code to grovel through the kernel to find socket
info is MUCH less sickening now, so identd is less of a performance hit
and less likely to fail due to race conditions.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
On 21 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You are really really missing my point here, so I will state it
> > again. If you have carefully examined the code for *every* case of *every*
> > internal service, and you have tested it thoroughly, and you are
On 21 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Doug writes:
> > You are really really missing my point here, so I will state it
> > again. If you have carefully examined the code for *every* case of *every*
> > internal service, and you have tested it thoroughly, and you are 100% sure
> > that
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:42:46 MST, Doug wrote:
> [...] there is an outstanding PR that shows it
> doesn't work for everybody, and there is absolutely no justification for
> leaving an example in the conf file that conflicts with the man page.
Doug, I'm annoyed that you ignored the most importan
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:42:46 MST, Doug wrote:
> [...] there is an outstanding PR that shows it
> doesn't work for everybody, and there is absolutely no justification for
> leaving an example in the conf file that conflicts with the man page.
Doug, I'm annoyed that you ignored the most important
Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are really really missing my point here, so I will state it
> again. If you have carefully examined the code for *every* case of *every*
> internal service, and you have tested it thoroughly, and you are 100% sure
> that the man page is in error, change
Doug writes:
> You are really really missing my point here, so I will state it
> again. If you have carefully examined the code for *every* case of *every*
> internal service, and you have tested it thoroughly, and you are 100% sure
> that the man page is in error, change the man page.
The
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:12:26 MST, Doug wrote:
>
> > Can you point out exactly what part of the man page that you are
> > referring to that contradicts what the inetd man page says? Have you
> > checked the actual code for inetd to verify that it wi
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:12:26 MST, Doug wrote:
>
> > Can you point out exactly what part of the man page that you are
> > referring to that contradicts what the inetd man page says? Have you
> > checked the actual code for inetd to verify that it wil
Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my experience, and in the experience of the PR poster it *is*
> necessary to use the canonical name of the service, however if you can
> check the code, test it thoroughly and determine that inetd works
> perfectly well with aliases, then feel free to ch
Doug writes:
> In my experience, and in the experience of the PR poster it *is*
> necessary to use the canonical name of the service, however if you can
> check the code, test it thoroughly and determine that inetd works
> perfectly well with aliases, then feel free to change the man page fo
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:12:26 MST, Doug wrote:
> Can you point out exactly what part of the man page that you are
> referring to that contradicts what the inetd man page says? Have you
> checked the actual code for inetd to verify that it will work with
> services aliases?
Certainly. Fro
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:12:26 MST, Doug wrote:
> Can you point out exactly what part of the man page that you are
> referring to that contradicts what the inetd man page says? Have you
> checked the actual code for inetd to verify that it will work with
> services aliases?
Certainly. From
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:02:14 MST, Doug wrote:
>
> > The service-name entry is the name of a valid service in the file
> > /etc/services. For ``internal'' services (discussed below), the
> > service name must be the official name of the service (
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:02:14 MST, Doug wrote:
>
> > The service-name entry is the name of a valid service in the file
> > /etc/services. For ``internal'' services (discussed below), the
> > service name must be the official name of the service (t
A copy of my reply has been bounced to freebsd-gnats-submit, since the
address in the forwarded headers was misspelled.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:02:14 MST, Doug wrote:
> The service-name entry is the name of a valid service in the file
> /etc/services. For ``internal'' services (discussed below), the
> service name must be the official name of the service (that is, the first
> entry in /etc/services).
Read the s
Since y'all are discussing inetd.conf, here is something else to
consider.
Doug
Original Message
Subject: Re: misc/11796: Bad lines in 3.2-RELEASE inetd.conf
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Studded
To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav
CC: freebsd-b...@freebsd.org
29 matches
Mail list logo
