[ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: tcpwrappers [was Re:[ksh93-...mumble]]

[Roland Mainz]

"Richard L. Hamilton" wrote:
[Setting Reply-To: to networking-discuss at opensolaris.org]
[snip]
> In the case of /etc/hosts -> ./inet/hosts
> I've seen lots of trouble from that, anytime someone
> ran an editor on /etc/hosts that deletes and recreates
> files rather than (like vi) writing over them.  It got
> to where the more senior admins had to put a script
> out that saved off a copy, fixed the symlink, and
> sent nasty email to the admin team.  That _after_
> everyone had been told more than once to edit
> /etc/inet/hosts, _not_ /etc/hosts.
[snip]

Erm, that's an editor bug. You can always hit such issues in other
context but (IMO) that doesn't make the concept of /etc/inet/ invalid
(at some point it may be intersting to put things like /etc/hosts and
other related *BSD symlinks into a seperate "SUNWoldbsdartifacts"
package to (brand-)mark them as such).

> This message posted from opensolaris.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Grumpf... sounds the "Jive" message board thing ignores Reply-To:
headers... ;-(

----

Bye,
Roland

-- 
  __ .  . __
 (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
  \__\/\/__/  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
  /O /==\ O\  TEL +49 641 7950090
 (;O/ \/ \O;)