Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Jun 21:
> You can expect the internal wrapping fixes and the SIGHUP bugfix to be
> merged back to STABLE soon (within a week). I'm in no rush, and I'm glad
> I didn't rush, since David Malone has already uncovered a bug in the
> handling of maxchild, which I
Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Jun 21:
> You can expect the internal wrapping fixes and the SIGHUP bugfix to be
> merged back to STABLE soon (within a week). I'm in no rush, and I'm glad
> I didn't rush, since David Malone has already uncovered a bug in the
> handling of maxchild, which I
> In message <19990621110303.a7...@walton.maths.tcd.ie>, David Malone writes:
>
> >wrapped (and it isn't possible to wrap tcp nowait services even with tcdp).
>
> Is that what you meant to say, or am I getting confused? Did you mean udp,
> or wait?
Of course - I ment tcp wait services.
There was a bug in inetd in which ment that if you HUPed inetd it could
get confuesed about the name of the services. This is probably what you
are seeing. Sheldon has just committed a fix for this.
The wrapping of internal services isn't quite working properly yet. Sheldon
has committed a partia
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:49:59 MST, Aaron Smith wrote:
> unfortunately incoming telnet was still denied. at first i tried
> HUPping inetd to reread the hosts.allow, but after looking at the
> source it appears to re-read its information each time hosts_access is
> called. has anyone else had probl
> on another note, LIBWRAP_INTERNAL looks like it must be defined for
> internal services to be wrapped, yet it is not defined during freebsd's
> compile -- only LIBWRAP is. yet freebsd's inetd man page says that internal
> services may be wrapped. since it is not currently so by default, perhaps
6 matches
Mail list logo
