--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:54:20PM +0100, Rui Paulo wrote:
> At Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:19:56 +0000 (UTC),
> Brian Ginsbach wrote:
> >=20
> >=20
> > Log Message:
> > Add EAFNOSUPPORT as a possible error if the address family is not
> > supported.  This adds further differentiation between which argument to
> > socket(2) caused the error.  No longer are invalid domain (address fami=
ly)
> > errors classified as ENOPROTOSUPPORT errors.  This should make socket(2)
> > conform to current POSIX and X/Open standards.  Fixes PR/33676.
>=20
> I was wondering, should we version socket(2) ?

I doubt it. I don't think this is that big a change, and versioning would=
=20
mean we would have to support the old version ~ forever.

While I don't think EAFNOTSUPPORT is the right error (we have EPFNOSUPPORT=
=20
which man errno seems to say is right), it's much better than=20
ENOPROTOSUPPORT.

Take care,

Bill

--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFEkHYCWz+3JHUci9cRAij+AJ0c3UEKB/hxsAKpKUWdUTYqTVHqbQCeI7YR
h9dR20kiwPojWJoeaf2w1WM=
=4b3S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c--