"Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote in <f36db85c-ba31-49d2-a5e0-fa001e7d6...@lists.zabbadoz.net>:
bz> The only thing I am only still pondering - do we want it to be bz> "slaac" "dchpv4" or the program name? I can see advantages with both. bz> If we go with "slaac" etc. we might need to - at least for the three or so bz> things from base, add a table to the man page like bz> program: origin bz> rtsol -> slaac bz> rtsold -> slaac bz> dhclient -> dhcpv4 bz> ppp -> ppp bz> as people may or may not be familiar enough with what the one or the bz> other might mean. Maybe simply describing the cases will be good bz> enough as well. bz> bz> I can imaging ports like mpd, ... to join this scheme and by then bz> there might be different "ppp" or "dhcpv4", "dhcpv6" or even different bz> "slaac". The advantage of this one is that if I prefer dhcpv6 on one bz> interface it doesn't make a difference if I am going to use dippler, bz> isc or wide. Yes, the reason why I chose a protocol name over a program name as the origin is exactly the same as what you think/feel. Documenting them is important for whichever we use---I am often confused with what name should be used for the daemon name field in /etc/hosts.allow and a !foo line in /etc/syslog.conf. Okay, I will give it a try to create a patchset for utilities that need /etc/resolv.conf update in the base system. -- Hiroki
pgplIWtr7rEQM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
