From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 31 8:46:53 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 C2C8B37B640; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:46:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 68EBB3E35; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D25F3C12C; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:46:33 -0700 (PDT) To: David Malone Cc: Dan Nelson , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, alfred@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: portmap_enable vs. rpcbind_enable In-Reply-To: <20010731163832.A91014@walton.maths.tcd.ie>; from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie on "Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:38:32 +0100" Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:46:28 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010731154633.68EBB3E35@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 David Malone writes: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 08:33:59AM -0700, Dima Dorfman wrote: > > 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. > > 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. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message