Let me rephrase - this is the only explanation I'm going to provide:_I_ am not going to remove it. If others feel so strongly that they would rather remove existing functionality (as ugly as it is), then _they_ can do the deed.
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, Wolfgang Solfrank wrote:
Hi,We all agree that filemon(4) is an ugly hack. It probably should never have gotten committed. But it is there now, and there are a (very) few use-cases. So we don't want to remove it without having a replacement implementation.Well, can you explain? Why would we not want to remove it and be done with that nonsense? Ciao, Wolfgang -- Wolfgang%Solfrank.net@localhost Wolfgang Solfrank
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+ | Paul Goyette | PGP Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: | | (Retired) | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com | | Kernel Developer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at netbsd.org | +------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+