Subject: Re: kernel & libkvm [was IIci success]
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 01/11/1996 10:07:04
> As much as I'd like to make procfs required, I can't justify
> endorsing that proposal until we have utilities that can make use of
Hm. We now have the following situation.
"I'd like to use procfs for this utility, but mustn't because it's only
"I'd like to make procfs non-optional, but nothing uses it."
Someone's gonna have to bite one bullet or the other, or we'll be
forever stuck where we are. :-)