From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jul  8 01:38:36 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA05664
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 01:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA05659
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 01:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA24630; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 01:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch)
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: no SYSVSHM in GENERIC now.. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Jul 1997 09:14:50 +0200."
             <19970708091450.QL25215@uriah.heep.sax.de> 
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 01:38:08 -0700
Message-ID: <24626.868351088@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> ...where jkh added them.  jkh seems to operate a lot on forgotten
> branches, and afterwards wonders why the bits didn't wander into the
> HEAD theirselves. :)

Yeah yeah, well.  What can I say? :)

> But Jordan, don't add SYSVMSG, almost nobody uses them.  They are
> really non-generic in a world that can use sockets to pass messages.
> (I know that there are differences, but nevertheless, they are not in
> wide use.)
> 
> Even SYSVSEM is arguable, i think the only `canned' application that
> uses them is PEX.  (Who uses PEX, anyway? :)

I was thinking actually of just SYSVSHM so I don't have to see the
X server whining all the time (or hear people reporting this).

					Jordan