In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dima Dorfman writes: > >That one can't modify ruleset 0 is documented copiously in the man >page, and all the examples are preceeded by "devfs ruleset 10" (see >the first sentence in the EXAMPLES section).
Doh! >phk and I had a long discussion about this, and the conclusion was >that it is indeed useful, sort of like having a NULL pointer is >useful. I can go through my archives if you're interested in details. >From a kernel programmer's point of view, maybe it could be the best idea since null pointers, though it's nice that reading/writing/enabling a null ruleset from userland doesn't make the kernel die horribly. Details like that would be good for a devfs_ruleset_API(9) (?) man page, but From the superuser's point of view, it's basically much ado about "nothing", seems to me. :) >Since this doesn't appear to be enough, perhaps you (or anyone, for that >matter) could suggest a better way to communicate this requirement? My vote would be a direct error message like "Must specify a default ruleset", or something closer to ipfw(8)'s behavior, like Mr. Nelson was saying. Andrew Lankford To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
