Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:38:32 +0100 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> Cc: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, alfred@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: portmap_enable vs. rpcbind_enable Message-ID: <20010731163832.A91014@walton.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <20010731153404.2CF803E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org>; from dima@unixfreak.org on Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 08:33:59AM -0700 References: <20010731102606.A26323@dan.emsphone.com> <20010731153404.2CF803E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 08:33:59AM -0700, Dima Dorfman wrote: > Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> writes: > > In the last episode (Jul 31), Dima Dorfman said: > > > Does anybody know (remember?) why portmap_enable (the rc.conf knob) > > > wasn't renamed to rpcbind_enable when portmap became rpcbind? It > > > seems odd to have a knob called portmap_enable that actually starts > > > something called rpcbind (not to mention violating POLA). > > > > Probably to keep existing rc.conf's from breaking. Same reason we've > > still got xntpd_enable. > > Why not change the names now, but keep the old ones working until, > say, 5.0 is branched? People moving from 4.x will have enough hurdles > to jump through as it is, and those using -current will have half a > year to change it. It still is an extra change for people updating from 4.X to 5.0. Maybe we should just make a portmap_program variable which is set to portmap in -stable and rpcbind in -current. At least things would be orthogonal then. David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010731163832.A91014>