Re: Will NMU libwrap0...
Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org> writes:
> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 08:24:04PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > I will NMU libwrap over the week-end to resolve the missing symbols
> > bug (for which there's a patch in the BTS). I've contected the author
> > 5 days ago without answer.
> > Any objections ?
>
> (a) No, go ahead.
I'll do that.
> (b) Yes, I'm not convinced that program trying to use libwrap should
> be able to get away with not defining allow_severity and
> deny_severity. And in any case I suspect the weak symbols should be
> initialised to something meaningful rather than implicitly left as
> `0' (LOG_INFO for allow and LOG_WARN for deny are what the other
> tcp-wrapper utilities use).
I'll set the defaults to these.
The problem is that the semantics of linking shared vs static are
different... Most distribs provide static libwrap.a (for historic
reasons I guess, and because it's really small) and people using
libwrap never define these symbols because they get defaults in
libwrap.a...
Do you known if the libwrap.a defaults are these ?
Phil.
Reply to: