Re: post-2.3.12 pending stuff in my private work area

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:42:02AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Steve G <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> >>2. a new "libwrap" option to let me configure the name 
> >>that libwrap is given for looking up if access is to be
> >>allowed.
> >
> > You shouldn't need this. tcpd always uses the basename of
> > the full path to the server.
> 
> That's the problem. Who says I can't use the same server executable with
> different environment variables and different access control lists on
> different ports? If I'm going to do that, I'll have to write shell
> wrappers. The libwrap feature trivially eliminates the need for the
> additional shell start.

I've actually come around on this patch.  xinetd and tcpwrappers
integration has always been kinda weird with xinetd.  There are
legitimate arguments to be made to be using sc_name, sc_id, or
the executable basename.  The addition of the libwrap configuration
option makes it absolutely clear for the people that care.  If 
libwrap is not specified, libwrap will default to the basename of
of the executable, or the sc_id if the service is internal.

Right now, xinetd & libwrap integration are a little inflexible
and this new configuration option alieviates that a little.

I'll look over the diff and unless there is a compelling argument
against it, I'll commit it later this afternoon along with the
Solaris build fixes.

Rob