On Wed, 4 May 2005, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
   >> Of what, exactly, and why?
   >
   > Of the broken nodev/nosuid "examples" you just committed. I think
   > we've discussed why in some detail.
   
   Not exactly. The only argument I've heared was that chroot setups for 
   named and ntp may break. But that's not all of the commit, and I'm getting 
   the impression you're using it as an excuse to spread some negative 
   feelings about some of the examples you have, partly from other commits.
   
   Maybe some other people want to voice an opinion, else I'll backout the 
   changes for nodev+nosuid-/var tomorrow, and rise a PR that NetBSD can't 
   handle the situation properly. :)


please back out the changes that meantion /var.  they are not good
examples because they WILL break existing setups that people have
(whether they use netbsd named/ntp chroot methods or not) had for
years.


you don't commit changes then say "please discuss on <random list>".
you should discuss on <random list> and then commit changes.  you
have this process backwards.


fwiw, the broken up examples from a short while ago i personally find
useful, but, these most recent changes i do not.  they do not contain
even one meantion that it may break applications.  you do realise that
by default qmail installs into /var/qmail and that (regardless of what
pkgsrc may do) people almost certainly have installs there still?


thanks.


.mrg.