Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:56:31 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libalias or libnat. Vote ? Message-ID: <199908242156.OAA78568@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <3843.935363694@localhost> References: <3843.935363694@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <3843.935363694@localhost>, Jordan K. Hubbard <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> wrote: > > I've been on both sides of this issue, to be sure, but I have to say > that looking at it now, I can't see any reason to change the actual > name of the library right now unless we're also going to go whole-hog > and change the API functions to PacketNATFoo() and such, something > that would only really make sense (or be worth the effort, anyway) if > we had a bunch of improvements to bring in at the same time, e.g. a > significant rearchitecting effort. > > If we don't have anything like that planned, then simply changing the > user visible flags and man pages to strongly encourage use of -nat > style options rather than the deprecated -alias ones will probably > be enough of a step in the right direction for now. I agree. Users don't know or care about the name of the library. Programmers are used to dealing with quirks like having NAT implemented in a library named libalias. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up." -- Nora Ephron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908242156.OAA78568>