Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 08:38:26 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: "Alton, Matthew" <Matthew.Alton@anheuser-busch.com> Cc: "'Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG'" <Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: procfs development Message-ID: <41691.1017815906@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:12:52 MDT." <E1450DFD283DD61184900002A5F0032356BD7C@STLABCEXG024>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <E1450DFD283DD61184900002A5F0032356BD7C@STLABCEXG024>, "Alton, Matth ew" writes: >Are there any plans to expand the procfs implementation to provide an >interface that is more in line with the implementations on Unixware, >Solaris and AIX? I've been writing a simple debugger that would be >portable among those three platforms, and others, but it is based >completely on the procfs interface, and I've come to find out the >procfs implementation on FreeBSD and Linux are (aside from being >completely different from each other) completely different than what's >been done on AIX, Solaris and Unixware. We are working very hard to make procfs optional in FreeBSD for a number of reasons. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41691.1017815906>