Quoting Scott Long <scottl_at_samsco.org> (from Tue, 23 May 2006 10:08:15 -0600): > The problem is that Alexander wants these sysctls to only be temporary. > Recall that big thread from a month or two ago about treating sysctls > as an API, and how there was heavy disagreement over how to define > "stable" sysctls that apps could depend on? If a temporary set of > sysctls get put under the dev tree, then it risks becoming permanent, > which is not what Alexander wants. So, either we need to decide what > parts of the sysctl to define as stable, like I asked for in the > previous thread, or we need to pretend that it's not a problem that we > should address, and let you and Alexander continue to argue over the > 'correct place'. When we have a document/place which specifies a stable sysctl API, I can life with putting the temporary ones into the place which Dag-Erling suggested. Bye, Alexander. -- Selling GoodYear Eagle F1 235/40ZR18, 2x 4mm + 2x 5mm, ~150 EUR you have to pick it up between Germany/Saarland and Luxembourg/Capellen http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild _at_ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137Received on Wed May 24 2006 - 15:05:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:56 UTC