From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 31 8:34: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEC337B401; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:34:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2CF803E28; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238EE3C12B; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:34:04 -0700 (PDT) To: Dan Nelson Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, alfred@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: portmap_enable vs. rpcbind_enable In-Reply-To: <20010731102606.A26323@dan.emsphone.com>; from dnelson@emsphone.com on "Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:26:06 -0500" Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:33:59 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010731153404.2CF803E28@bazooka.unixfreak.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 Dan Nelson 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. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message