Doug Barton([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 10:05:40AM -0800:
> "Karsten W. Rohrbach" wrote:
> >
> > Warner Losh([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:40:18AM -0700:
> > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Greg Lehey writes:
> > > : > Play the ball, not the man.
> > > :
> > > : I don't have an objection to the change, I was just asking. And
> > > : "because System V does it this way" has never been a good answer for
> > > : us. And no, I'm not picking on Doug, just making a point.
> > >
> > > I see no reason why the name can't remain portmap.
> > >
> > does it take parameters?
> > then it would make sense to have it named rpcbind...
>
> Pardon me being dense, but what does that have to do with anything?
> portmap took a -v flag, or are you talking about something different?
the idea is, that if rpcbind takes parameters different from portmap it
would make sense to call rpcbind rpcbind because people's boxes will
start to barf when rpcbind is called portmap, they make world, and skip
reading the rpcbind paragraph in UPDATING ;-)
does this make sense?
/k
--
> Hugh Hefner is a virgin.
KR433/KR11-RIPE -- http://www.webmonster.de -- ftp://ftp.webmonster.de
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
