Ingo Schwarze <[email protected]> wrote: > >> * Change the misleading argument placeholder "portnumber" to "service"; > >> even the default ("rsync") isn't a number. In the description, > >> mention services(5), and also mention the default. > > > I don't object, but I wonder how much detail is needed. Since time > > immemorial, ports could always be specified as a number or a service > > name ("telnet mailserver smtp"). It's only worth mentioning if > > service names are _not_ supported for some reason. I pondered the > > issue when I added support for service names to ssh, and eventually > > decided to just leave it alone. > > I agree that often, it isn't feasible to re-explain basic concepts > at every place where they are used. But here, it is merely one > short sentence, and i see no downside in being explicit. It may > help people who haven't been UNIX users since "time immemorial". > So i left the sentence in place.
BTW, rsync --port=rsync rsync: --port=rsync: invalid numeric value rsync error: syntax or usage error (code 1) at main.c(1578) [client=3.1.3] Doing a service lookup in openrsync is an miraculous modern extension, rsync is still living in the pre-1981 or so..
