Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:58:42PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> I really need to sit down and write a proposal / patches for NetBSD to
> support the 'vendor' sysctl tree, that can be checked usefully. Since that
> would be the canonical way of testing this (a 'debian' vendor could have a
> sub-field indicating which sort of port it was).
There is one possible problem with that. It occurred to that it is quite
possible now to run regular freebsd in a jail or chroot on a debian
freebsd box, and vice versa. I assume the same is true for the netbsd
port. If we use sysctl or uname to make the distinction, that jail or
chroot usage will be affected.