On 4/12/12 5:40 PM, Vladimir Arseniev wrote: > If that's the case, why do default 1.9.1 installs still write them, and > leave tub.port and tub.location commented out in tahoe.cfg? Is it for > backward compatibility?
The port number isn't known until the node starts up (and asks the kernel for a free port for the first time), then it gets written out to the .port file. We didn't want the node to modify tahoe.cfg (seemed like a bad idea at the time), so it writes it to an external .port file. When tahoe.cfg:tub.port is empty, the external .port file gets used. I'd have to double-check, but I'm pretty sure that when tahoe.cfg:tub.port is present, it takes precedence, and the external .port file is ignored (and probably overwritten). (also, if you set the port number to "0", that means "ask the kernel for a random free port", and I think it still writes the real portnum into the external .port file, instead of writing "0" there). So if you care what port it listens on, modify your tahoe.cfg . If you don't, leave tahoe.cfg at the default and it'll pick a random one (and will keep reusing that port in the future). cheers, -Brian _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
