Re: [fossil-users] OT: Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

> On Oct 22, 2016, at 17:23, K. Fossil user > wrote: > P.S. : I will never understand why people don't know about security issue > when it comes to inetd. Aha, so this was a security concern. I figured just as much. Please read on. (: > I was explained to

Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016, at 05:28 PM, Steven Gawroriski wrote: > Is Fossil able to bind to a single IP address? There is `--localhost` It doesn't seem that way, no. I've personally worked around it by employing tcpsvd from Gerrit Pape's excellent ipsvd package. The inetd super server (and its

Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil bind to a single address?

On Oct 21, 2016, at 18:55, K. Fossil user wrote: > However, xinetd or inetd are not recommended... That ellipsis really should be filled in with more details. Would you perhaps be willing to elaborate a bit on what you mean? —n

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Facebook engineers preferring hg to Git

On Oct 28, 2016, at 07:33, Richard Hipp wrote: > > Perhaps true. But in my brief look at Rust I observed that you really > cannot use it effectively without also having to use Git. The two > seem closely linked. Is that incorrect? It is indeed. Sadly, the examples don't help

Re: [fossil-users] OT: Why we should NEVER use inetd/xinetd

> On Oct 28, 2016, at 02:29, Luca Ferrari wrote: > No, I do. > You should go trolling somewhere else. Just checking in. It seems that my decision to mute this thread within my mailer immediately after my single response was a good idea. From my perspective, this thread