From owner-freebsd-current Tue Sep 24 17:42:56 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA06300 for current-outgoing; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (root@agora.rdrop.com [199.2.210.241]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA05846 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rover.village.org by agora.rdrop.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #17) id m0v5i2X-0008zHC; Tue, 24 Sep 96 17:41 PDT Received: from rover.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.7.6/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA08968 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 18:34:56 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199609250034.SAA08968@rover.village.org> Subject: Re: install on {Net,Open}BSD vs install on FreeBSD To: current@FreeBSD.org Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 18:34:55 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Based on Jordan's and other arguments, and the general support I've gotten, I'll go ahead and just do it. it == commit the rest of the -d stuff, fully functional, no warnings. I understand Nate's and Bruce's objections. They are correct as far as they go,, and I agree better ways to doo the same thing exist and -d shouldn't be encouraged in the system build. However, in this particular case, compatibility with other, closely related systems, overrides the concerns over its potential for abuse. I appreciate all the input that I've received, and will remember it in the future, as it gives me a good feel for the underlying philsophical landscape of the FreeBSD community. Warner