Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:06:05 +0100 From: "Johan Granlund" <johan@mail.elpost.com> To: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VM system info Message-ID: <199712081917.LAA01068@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <19971208093719.50393@follo.net> References: <199712080706.RAA00375@word.smith.net.au>; from Mike Smith on Mon, Dec 08, 1997 at 05:36:08PM %2B1030
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Mon, Dec 08, 1997 at 05:36:08PM +1030, Mike Smith wrote: > > > I want this info in the kernel. At the very least, I want > > > documentation as a part of the SYSCTL_*() macro parameters, unused but > > > available as a (mandatory) part of the source - better would be as a > > > part of the kernel that can be compiled away by setting a kernel > > > option (e.g. NO_SYSCTL_DOCS). > > > > Would you buy it in /usr/share/misc/sysctl_nodes? I was thinking about > > that when I saved John's message... > > If extracted from the kernel source, I'd say it was OK. However, if I saw a lot of years ago a package that extracted formatted dokumentation from the sources. I dont remember the name but it should have been on a DECUS tape. > this is a file that developers are supposed to to keep up to date > manually, I'm much more sceptical. Keeping documentation outside the > source up to date has a tendency to be forgotten/ignored. More like newer work. > > Eivind. > /Johan ___________________________________________________________ Internet: Johan@elpost.com I don't even speak for myself
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712081917.LAA01068>