On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 01:48:02PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 
> While I don't think EAFNOTSUPPORT is the right error (we have EPFNOSUPPORT 
> which man errno seems to say is right), it's much better than 
> ENOPROTOSUPPORT.
> 

I agree but then we need convince IEEE and X/Open.  The current
standards have no concept of EPFNOSUPPORT.  Maybe if this would
have been fixed long ago by the CSRG, IEEE and X/Open would have
had the right errno to begin with.  As it stands now I think we
need to live with the admittedly poorer EAFNOSUPPORT.

Brian