Randy McMurchy wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 5:07 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> For instance subversion really goes with programming
>> more than networking; TCP Wrappers goes more with either System
>> Utilities or Security; etc.
>
> I'd just like to mention that I mildly disagree on both counts,
> especially Subversion. For instance, we use Subversion to track
> the changes of our own books, which has nothing to do with
> programming. I could name other instances where I use Subversion
> for tracking changes to things other than programs.
It depends on how you look at it. The reason for the vast majority of
version control applications is to support programming (code), even
though you can use it for other things.
Besides, building LFS/BLFS *is* programming. You still go through an
edit, build, check process. The output of a programming process is not
always executable code.
> And yes, you could make a case that TCP Wrappers could belong in
> security, but it *is* a networking package. It is all about access
> and control of networks.
There are a lot of things that could go into multiple categories. To
me, without the security issue, there is no need for TCP Wrappers at
all. Wikipedia says: "TCP Wrapper is a host-based Networking ACL
system..." The acl program is in the Security chapter, so I think TCP
Wrappers should be there too.
Personally, I think the package is obsolete (as is {,x}inetd), but too
many people think they need those packages, so we can't drop them.
TCP Wrappers was last updated in March 1997. Inetutils and xinetd were
last updated in 2005.
Note that the FreeBSD Handbook has TCP Wrappers in the Security chapter.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
