From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Aug  2  4:22:38 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CAA6014BC9; Mon,  2 Aug 1999 04:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com)
	by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
	id 11BG9T-000KeJ-00; Mon, 02 Aug 1999 13:21:07 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>
Cc: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu>,
	hackers@FreeBSD.org, committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services 
In-reply-to: Your message of "02 Aug 1999 13:19:01 +0200."
             <xzppv162zx6.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> 
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 13:21:07 +0200
Message-ID: <79378.933592867@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



On 02 Aug 1999 13:19:01 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:

> > Would this not still require modifications to /etc/services for services
> > not already mentioned in that file?
> 
> Allow me to re-quote the message I answered:
> 
> > I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a
> > service name...

I think that's exactly what Daniel's getting at.

If we fix this in inetd, we get what we want. If we fix this in
getservbyport() we may get something that we don't want, namely
applications that relay on the existing behaviour of the function stop
working as intended.

Ciao,
Sheldon.


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