--aT9PWwzfKXlsBJM1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 02:02:13AM +0100, Rui Paulo wrote:
> I don't think there is a good reason for a difference and it never was.
> IIRC, there are several sysctl nodes that do the same in FreeBSD and
> NetBSD and they have different names for no reason.

This is, actually, my point.  I haven't used FreeBSD much, but I have
run across the differences in sysctl naming.  I'm suggesting that we
don't perpetuate the difference unless we have another place for it
to go, which we don't currently seem to have.

Until we have a place for it to go, let's stick with the existing
name from FreeBSD (no matter where the implementation comes from).
As a new security node is considered, let's plan a place for it,
but let's not stop the feature (if it's truly useful for folks)
because we don't have that sysctl node laid out.

-allen

--=20
                  Use NetBSD!  http://www.NetBSD.org/

--aT9PWwzfKXlsBJM1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFDE8lftbG21IdtLQIRAlGgAJ9QpN93vjb1tzoyaexXxtA7nJLH3wCeKjEm
YlmSs4uVakRMh/OYyKMmYHA=
=v3cr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--aT9PWwzfKXlsBJM1--