From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 2 22:39: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6912037B41A for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:38:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g336cQ4F041692; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 08:38:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: "Alton, Matthew" Cc: "'Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG'" Subject: Re: procfs development In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:12:52 MDT." Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 08:38:26 +0200 Message-ID: <41691.1017815906@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , "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