From owner-cvs-all  Fri Feb 20 19:52:40 1998
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA17229
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:52:40 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from istari.home.net (cc158233-a.catv1.md.home.com [24.3.25.17])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA17185
          for <committers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:52:23 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from sjr@home.net)
Received: (from sjr@localhost)
	by istari.home.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id WAA05064;
	Fri, 20 Feb 1998 22:22:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 22:22:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "Stephen J. Roznowski" <sjr@home.net>
Message-Id: <199802210322.WAA05064@istari.home.net>
To: dg@root.com
Subject: Re: Status of kern/5402 -- can someone process? 
In-Reply-To: Mail from 'David Greenman <dg@root.com>'
      dated: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 21:53:52 -0800
Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
> 
> >On 31 Dec 1997, I submitted a PR (kern/5402) updating in_pcb.c to
> >reflect current IANA port ranges....
> >
> >Any chance of getting someone to process this (or close it)?
> 
>    Last I recall on this subject was that our current port ranges were the
> desired ones and certain people might become murderous if they were changed.

Well, I can't really think of a technical reason why one range should
be preferred over the other, and in that case, I would have hoped that
FreeBSD would follow the "standard".

I'd appreciate hearing what the objections are (privately is fine).

If the architects are in agreement to keep the existing port range,
then this PR can be closed.

Thanks,
-SR


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message