-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 6 May 2005, Hubert Feyrer wrote:

> On Thu, 5 May 2005, Jim Wise wrote:
>> Please back these changes out.  If you want to add a commented-out
>> example below the example, with comments explaining `use this only in
>> these specific cases, and here's why', I wouldn't have a problem with
>> that, though.
>
> You mean a "specific" case like a default NetBSD installation? :)
> As far as I know, problems arise right now when
> * someone runs applications like qmail from /var
> * someone has linux compat pkgs (-> /usr/pkg/emul/linux/dev) installed
> * someone runs named or ntpd chrooted

All of which are not only very common, but things we _encourage people 
to do_.   Yet you are suggesting we give our users a _recommendation_ 
which will break these.

The bar for practices which we recommend to our users needs to be higher 
than ``this doesn't break the default install''.  The default install, 
after all, has almost no services turned on -- it does not resemble, nor 
is it intended to resemble, the manner in which users actually use our 
system on a day-to-day basis.

For us to recommend a practice, then, that practice has to not only not 
break the default install, but also not break the usual ways in which 
people use our system.


> None of these are on by default. I've sent a patch to Luke to test the mount
> flags for chroot'ed named+ntpd, just in case. Maybe someone wants to add
> something similar to pkgsrc. Code available on request.

In short, you're suggesting that we add explicit code to system startup 
scripts to test whether people have adopted a broken suggestion which 
we gave them, and warn them (only then!) that the suggestion was a bad 
idea?

That doesn't even pass the laugh test...

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCe3qLpRpI6SYACmIRAicNAJ98FUpi1h7R/JKbiWGJKpoxeY663QCg4g56
VhJhjNsWOIicNacbglOWtwQ=
=FeVE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----