Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:06:49 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> Cc: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>, Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: portmap_enable vs. rpcbind_enable Message-ID: <20010731110649.Z26571@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20010731154633.68EBB3E35@bazooka.unixfreak.org>; from dima@unixfreak.org on Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 08:46:28AM -0700 References: <20010731163832.A91014@walton.maths.tcd.ie> <20010731154633.68EBB3E35@bazooka.unixfreak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> [010731 10:53] wrote: > David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> writes: > > 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. > > That's what we already have, but we still have a knob that says it > will start 'portmap' starting something called 'rpcbind', and the user > didn't explicitly ask for that. If people think it's too much > trouble, though, I'm not going to press the issue. I think the main issue was to protect those that specifically turned portmap off from having rpc_bind turn it on. Since portmap and rpcbind are pretty much the same program it made sense at the time to at least keep the old name valid in absence of a specific rpcbind_enable flag. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] Ok, who wrote this damn function called '??'? And why do my programs keep crashing in it? 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?20010731110649.Z26571>