Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ah, I see. That is indeed true, because it takes over the portmap socket > and then doesn't implement the actual protocol, preventing any other sunrpc > services from being used in the normal ways. This will have to be > changed.
Yes indeed. > It is fine that nfsd uses dedicated canonical port numbers for the nfs and > nfsmount sunrpc protocols. I suppose it's also vaguely reasonable that it > provide a minimal portmap server when there isn't one on the system. NFS is special; it's required to use a dedicated canonical port number, unlike other portmap services. > But it is not reasonable to take over the portmap port and then not > be a real portmap server, so that no other sunrpc services can be > used on the system. nfsd should act as a client of the portmap > daemon (and an existing unixoid portmap daemon will do fine). Yes, I agree.
