> >Given that "ABI" is a bit obscure, kern.compat is the only sensible
> >choice.
>
> I think that is too obscure considering the exposure this will get.
What "exposure"? It's a backend to a tuning interface for our ABI
compatibility...
> It doesn't really matter much what we feel about it, linux will be
> a native and 100% normal binary format for us, if we try to
> marginalize it we loose in perception.
I don't see how organising the sysctl namespace in a tidy fashion
constitutes "marginalising" anything.
> We have things to make us posix compatible at the top level already,
> I don't see why the linux stuff should live under the top level too.
One wrong...
> And as father of sysctl, I think this discussion needs to come to
> a close rather than waste more bandwidth, so unless Mike can convince
> us why "Adding anything at the top level would be a terrible mistake"
> I think the conclusion is "linux.*"
For the same reason that fattening any top-level namespace is a bad
idea. I mean, why not just put all the Linux libraries in /lib where
they expect to be?
>From the perspective of an integrated namespace, we've already made the
wrong moves insofar as vm.* should be kern.vm.*, vfs.* should be
kern.vfs.*, etc. Either the entire kernel namespace should have a
presumed leading kern. (and the existing kern.* nodes need to move) or
we should relocate stuff to reflect a more ubuquitous naming
arrangement.
(btw, you're not the "father" of sysctl. I might go for "perpetrator"
or "culprit" though.)
--
\\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith
\\ of the man. \\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ -- Joseph Merrick \\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
