From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Sep 7 1:39:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from relay.nuxi.com (nuxi.cs.ucdavis.edu [169.237.7.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ECE015572; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:39:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by relay.nuxi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10340; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:38:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:38:36 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Brad Knowles Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softupdates in latest build? Message-ID: <19990907013836.C10117@relay.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG References: <199909061904.MAA03182@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre1i In-Reply-To: <199909061904.MAA03182@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.3-RC Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-PGP-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Keyid: 34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Given my above statement of _why_ bpf is needed I think it would be > safe to assume that FreeBSD has done do deligence in it's task of > weighting functionality vs security Correct. And that is why I reduced the number of bpf pseudo-devices from 4 to 1 -- the minimum number we can do a DHCP install and post-install configuration with. -- -- David (obrien@NUXI.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message