From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jan 13 11:55:45 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF1D14CC0 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:55:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA20110 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:55:39 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id UAA80108 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:55:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from lucifer.bart.nl (lucifer.bart.nl [194.158.168.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A8315039; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:54:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asmodai@lucifer.bart.nl) Received: (from asmodai@localhost) by lucifer.bart.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20866; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:54:38 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from asmodai) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:54:38 +0100 From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven To: Yoshinobu Inoue Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Solicite review for KAME 10th patch] Message-ID: <20000113205438.C20217@lucifer.bart.nl> References: <20000114044825G.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000114044825G.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp>; from shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp on Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 04:48:25AM +0900 Organisation: bART Internet Services B.V. Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -On [20000113 20:50], Yoshinobu Inoue (shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp) wrote: > > -can put some feature until 14th midnight? >or > -can put some feature until 15th midnight? The 15th 00:00 Freefall time? >And I did it again, >I added a new function realhostname2() which is protocol >independent version of realhostname(), in libutil. > >If someone think these naming style should be changed, I think >it is best timing now. Please give me some proposal. >e.g. > bindresvport_sa() > realhostname_sa() I really prefer the _sa versions because the naming is less ambiguous from the 2 appended versions. I wonder what the others think. Has this been standardised somewhere already or are we now still in a phase, do what you want and after that we'll make a IPv6 API standard? Thanks for doing this shin. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Network- and systemadministrator bART Internet Services / Tel: +31 - (0) 10 - 240 39 70 VIA NET.WORKS Netherlands To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message