Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:52:11 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysctl descriptions Message-ID: <199901110452.VAA13815@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199901102149.VAA00631@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org> References: <199901101807.KAA07319@dingo.cdrom.com> <199901102149.VAA00631@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > FWIW, I back Pouls opinion. What's so special about sysctls that > > > makes them even need the description field in the first place - let > > > alone actually compiling it in ? > > > > What's special about them is that they are the presentation form of > > kernel tunable values. They're fronted directly to the user. > > I don't see what the difference is between the use of sysctl and the > use of say kbdcontrol or mixer. If I want to find out how to use the > stuff that mixer changes, I ``man mixer''. Sysctl tweaks the way the > kernel behaves. If I want information, I ``man sysctl''. sysctl is too general to be documented. It would be like reading the perl manpages in hopes of tring to figure out what trim() does. Yes, you can find it, but it's not optimal for the many reasons already outlined (maintainability, ease of use, etc...) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901110452.VAA13815>