From owner-freebsd-doc Sun Apr 8 13: 0: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0119D37B423 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:00:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f38K04715432; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:00:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200104082000.f38K04715432@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Cc: From: Dima Dorfman Subject: Re: docs/26366: ipfw(8) doesn't document which sysctl control dynamic rules Reply-To: Dima Dorfman Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR docs/26366; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dima Dorfman To: anarcat Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/26366: ipfw(8) doesn't document which sysctl control dynamic rules Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 12:51:23 -0700 anarcat writes: > Shouldn't sysctl(8) document all sysctl? :) Perhaps, but no one in their right mind will probably want to maintain it. There are currently 588 sysctl's on my -current system, with more being added every day. Not to mention semantics being changed. In other words: it will become so outdated so quickly that I don't think it's worth it. Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message