From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Sep 19 22:17:21 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from proxy4.ba.best.com (proxy4.ba.best.com [206.184.139.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A4115249 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:17:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com ([209.157.86.2]) by proxy4.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.out) with ESMTP id WAA28914; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id WAA77228; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:13:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:13:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199909200513.WAA77228@apollo.backplane.com> To: Chuck Robey Cc: Julian Elischer , Wayne Cuddy , FreeBSD Hackers List Subject: Re: what is devfs? References: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :you're on, but there are 2 sides to the argument. Isn't there some way :that it can be set up to *optionally* have permission persistence? : :If you would get past that point, then all the political problems that :remain are solvable. : :Whatever, let's please not get into an argument over persistence, it's in :the archives. : :---------------------------------------------------------------------------- :Chuck Robey | Interests include C programming, Electronics, Personally speaking I don't see how permission persistence could possibly be implemented within DEVFS itself without a huge amount of work. I'm not sure it would be appropriate to implement it there anyhow when it is so easy to just make the necessary changes in rc.local. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message