On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:39:47 -0400 (EDT)
Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
deischen> Great work, but is there a reason why this is called cached instead
deischen> of nscd? There is prior precedent (Linux, Solaris) for nscd and
deischen> nscd.conf, and cached is just too general.
cached(8) doesn't do actuall lookup like nscd(8) does, basically. So,
I feel awkward to call cached(8) nscd(8). However, it might be too
general as you say.
Well, what is the difference between Linux/Solaris nscd and cached?
Is there a reason why we don't want the daemons to be functionally
equivalent?
--
DE
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
