On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 08:03:12AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:43:03PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > >Certainly it will have a hard time working on any of the BSDs anytime soon, > >if it relies on devfs more than trivially; they have no concept of it, nor > >are they really likely to anytime soon. > > > >Use of /proc should also, prefferably, be limited to traditional /proc > >items and not the Linux view of using it as a sysctl area (though there is > > Another option is for the bsd port to write their own installer module. > If something is radically easier to do using devfs or proc I don't think > it's reasonable to forbid it because of a hypothetical bsd port. In principle, agreed. In practice, I find that once such assumptions creep in, it can be very, very hard to remove them without yanking out a lot of entrails to go with. This can be handled, but the worth of being careful to properly keep these things from creeping out beyond where they can be replaced is still there. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Attachment:
pgpr2fqjqP4DP.pgp
Description: PGP signature