Icecast dev - Dec 2007 - Re: [xiph-commits] r14314 - icecast/trunk/icecast/src

karl@svn.xiph.org wrote:
> +    /* drop the first listening socket details if more than one is
defined, as we only
> +     * have port or listen-socket not both */
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why *have* both?  Wouldn't it simply 
make sense to just have listen-socket and be done with it?

You could debrecate it for a release or two if you don't want to break 
config files immediately.

Geoff.

Geoff Shang wrote:
> karl@svn.xiph.org wrote:
> 
>> +    /* drop the first listening socket details if more than one is 
>> defined, as we only
>> +     * have port or listen-socket not both */
> 
> Maybe this is a stupid question, but why *have* both?  Wouldn't it 
> simply make sense to just have listen-socket and be done with it?
 From an xml point of view, there is not point in having both, but it is 
a legacy thing and I am aiming for a 2.3.2 release so we should keep it 
for now.
> You could debrecate it for a release or two if you don't want to break 
> config files immediately.
I'd go along with deprecating the port setting (along with bind-address) 
in favour of listen-socket only, unless people have particular objections.

karl.