From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 31 8:45:56 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFF537B409; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (john@[147.11.46.217]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA27187; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20010731114846.42FA73E2F@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:45:23 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: Dima Dorfman Subject: RE: portmap_enable vs. rpcbind_enable Cc: alfred@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 31-Jul-01 Dima Dorfman wrote: > 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). Actually, it was for POLA reasons. (I'm not arguing for or against said reason, mind you.) It was thought that changing the name of the portmap_enable knob might throw some people for a loop. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message