Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:56:56 +0200 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Michael Reifenberger <mike@Reifenberger.com> Subject: _<service> users [Was: startup error for pflogd] Message-ID: <200406220157.02776.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <20040621164657.GA2544@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20040620134437.P94503@fw.reifenberger.com> <200406211639.22243.max@love2party.net> <20040621164657.GA2544@dragon.nuxi.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Monday 21 June 2004 18:46, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 04:39:10PM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > > This might seem like OpenBSD/paranoia, but my opinion on it is: It's done > > so why not port it over? It also helps to keep the diff down (which means > > less work). > > > > If there is no resistance against "yet another user", I will add _pflogd. > > I would prefer just 'pflogd' until it is discussed if we want to follow > the _<service> way. Okay, let's talk about this then: Any strong optionions one way or the other? I think this is a bikeshed. There is no technical argument (to my knowledge) that suggests either. My vote is for "_<service>" to keep the diff down, but that is not an argument of course. Others have said that it: - helps to recognize system processes - helps to see "bad things" happening (1000 _pflogd is not a good sign) - resolves possible namespace problems I can't think of a propper contra, but maybe "It looks ugly" qualifies ;) Tell me if I overlook something. Thanks. -- Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBA13XOXyyEoT62BG0RAvSKAJ4ltPLIQJsBcTEg22E5VJwOK+dybgCfYyBd 41QFqrR/H2SfQzQYrugg7UM= =O3YE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200406220157.02776.max>