Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] a cold wind bloweth
From: Wenchi Liao (wliao@midway.uchicago.edu)
Date: Wed Jun 09 1999 - 15:50:59 EDT
tkaczma@gryf.net wrote:
>
>
>On 9 Jun 1999, William P. McGonigle wrote:
>
>> --- tkaczma@gryf.net wrote:
>> Does one NEED tcp wrappers to run atalk on Solaris?
>> --- end of quote ---
>>
>> You start getting into philosophical issues here.
>>
>> Some people would say that you should make it as easy as possible to get up
>and
>> running with netatalk. This means no security.
>
>It's not philosophical at all netatalk is netatalk and not TCPwrappers.
>The TCPwrappers people should worry about TCPwrapper problems. Expecting
>netatalk people to worry about TCPwrapper problems is foolish. Besides,
>when I install netatalk I just want to install netatalk not netatalk and
>TCPwrappers. I can get my own, and possibly more recent version of
>TCPwrappers. Modularity is good not evil. Besides, perhaps all of my
>boxes are behind a firewall and I don't need the overhead of TCPwrappers
>at all.
The problem here is that tcpwrapper is just an example of stuff that
has to be compiled in. I could have used afs and krb as well.
My point whether we can agree on a base install (eg: no des, no afs, no
krb, no pam, and no tcpwrappers). If the base install is no des and no
wrappers, than I (and I'm sure a lot of other people) just won't use
it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of having an rpm of it.
Granted, precompiled stuff isn't for everybody, but it is a bit
annoying when 2/3 of problems/questions deal with a particular bad rpm
build, or when people try to compile netatalk without reading the
README that talks about where to get a copy of libdes.
As alluded to by others, the best approach seems to be a brave soul to
``volunteer'' to create a tarball/rpm with certain options on a certain
platform, with a known destination for the files.
WL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:16:48 EST