Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 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 
> both and is equally interested in both (or more interested in sysctl), 
> then yes, moving away from always needing libkvm is good. However not all 
> the folks who can work on an rc script to try and figure things out can 
> also bash on kernel groveling code.
>
> So if someone wants to add an rc script for this, let's let them. :-)
>   

A sysctl is needed to expose the booted kernel name to an rc script,
isn't it?  Or is it already there in sysctl?

    -- Garrett

> In the past, NetBSD has resisted features because "they weren't The Right 
> thing to do." I think the project has suffered from that. This sounds like 
> 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 
> will still have pressure to migrate away from always needing kernel 
> grovelers. :-)
>
> Take care,
>
> Bill
>   


-- 
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/
Phone: 951 325-2134  Fax: 951 325-2191