--Y1L3PTX8QE8cb2T+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 05:41:35PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> IMO, the energy spent on this would be better spent making programs not
> access kernel memory directly.

Depends on who is doing it. If the developer in question could work on=20
both and is equally interested in both (or more interested in sysctl),=20
then yes, moving away from always needing libkvm is good. However not all=
=20
the folks who can work on an rc script to try and figure things out can=20
also bash on kernel groveling code.

So if someone wants to add an rc script for this, let's let them. :-)

In the past, NetBSD has resisted features because "they weren't The Right=
=20
thing to do." I think the project has suffered from that. This sounds like=
=20
the same thing, and I'd rather we not do it again.

Since we still have ports that won't be able to get at their kernel, we=20
will still have pressure to migrate away from always needing kernel=20
grovelers. :-)

Take care,

Bill

--Y1L3PTX8QE8cb2T+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFETZ2BWz+3JHUci9cRAj9cAKCCOmneQaIjNIDrI34ooyBUyyBiOACePYjW
5kEyE0fY6HwwpVY7G3QI1yk=
=kKov
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Y1L3PTX8QE8cb2T+--