In article <3843.935363694@localhost>,
Jordan K. Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
