From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Mar 14 19:36:22 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D2537B8C9 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:36:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03768 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 04:38:42 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id EAA12584 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 04:36:13 +0100 (MET) Received: from dt051n0b.san.rr.com (dt051n0b.san.rr.com [204.210.32.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB3E37C076 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:34:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Received: from slave (doug@slave [10.0.0.1]) by dt051n0b.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA94942 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:34:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:34:03 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton X-Sender: doug@dt051n0b.san.rr.com To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Time for an /etc/ipv6 directory? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Greetings, We're starting to get a lot of new files in /etc related to the IPV6 changes (which I think are a fabulous thing, don't get me wrong). Would it be worthwhile to follow the precedent of /etc/ssh and /etc/mail to lump these files together in their own directory? My personal feeling is that anything which needs 3 files or more should get a directory, and we just crossed that point with IPV6. Doug -- "Welcome to the desert of the real." - Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus, "The Matrix" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Mar 14 20: 2:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4327F37B86B for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:02:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA03903 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 05:04:56 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id FAA12660 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 05:02:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp [192.51.44.35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBA3637B88B for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:02:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-MX0002-Fujitsu Gateway) id NAA25143; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:02:16 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp) Received: from chisato.nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-0002-Fujitsu Domain Master) id NAA24973; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:02:15 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (dhcp7173.nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp [10.18.7.173]) by chisato.nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp (8.8.5+2.7Wbeta5/3.3W8chisato-970826) with ESMTP id NAA18977; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:02:14 +0900 (JST) To: Doug@gorean.org Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time for an /etc/ipv6 directory? In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) X-Prom-Mew: Prom-Mew 1.93.4 (procmail reader for Mew) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20000315130310N.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:03:10 +0900 From: Yoshinobu Inoue X-Dispatcher: imput version 990905(IM130) Lines: 13 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Greetings, > > We're starting to get a lot of new files in /etc related to the > IPV6 changes (which I think are a fabulous thing, don't get me > wrong). Would it be worthwhile to follow the precedent of /etc/ssh and > /etc/mail to lump these files together in their own directory? My personal > feeling is that anything which needs 3 files or more should get a > directory, and we just crossed that point with IPV6. I agree it, and thanks for the suggestion. :-) I'll prepare for it. Yoshinobu Inoue To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Mar 15 10:45:16 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2999837C07B for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:44:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10074 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:46:46 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id TAA13964 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:44:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from barracuda.aquarium.rtci.com (barracuda.aquarium.rtci.com [208.11.247.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24A637C32A for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:09:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tstromberg@rtci.com) Received: from barracuda (barracuda [208.11.247.5]) by barracuda.aquarium.rtci.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07989; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:09:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:09:23 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Stromberg X-Sender: tstromberg@barracuda.aquarium.rtci.com To: Yoshinobu Inoue Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time for an /etc/ipv6 directory? (restructure /etc?) In-Reply-To: <20000315130310N.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The "three files" theory makes things seem a little SYSVish to me (for me this isn't bad, but some hardcore BSD folk will squirm). I personally like /etc/mail since theres so much stuff in there. However, should we follow SYSV and litter /etc with directories and compatibility symlinks? For example, in Solaris 7, there is 55 directories (multilevel) underneath /etc, and 79 symlinks to fix compatibility with apps that expect them (and other weird files) in old places. A lot of this is old compatibility with SunOS 4 of course. Solaris 7 chooses to throw in doors, fifos, libs, and other annoyances in there as well. However, in FreeBSD 3.4, we've got 20 subdirectories (32 or so with XF86-4.0), and 6 symlinks. Much cleaner. We do however only ~170 files, whereas Solaris 7 has ~370. Where I'm going with all of this is, should we create for instance, an /etc/inet (or inet4?) and an /etc/inet6 directory? Or have 3 directories, /etc/inet for general, /etc/inet4 for ipv4 specific stuff, /etc/inet6 for ipv6 specific stuff? Or for simplicity, move everything to an /etc/inet directory? What other files are we going to gather in /etc from the BSD/OS codemerge? Should we make an /etc/rc.d directory because we have >3 rc scripts? (we've got 17 of them now). For instance, Solaris 7 stores the following in /etc/inet: [tstromberg@barracuda] inet> find /etc/inet /etc/inet /etc/inet/CVS /etc/inet/CVS/Root /etc/inet/CVS/Repository /etc/inet/CVS/Entries /etc/inet/hosts~ /etc/inet/hosts /etc/inet/inetd.conf /etc/inet/netmasks /etc/inet/networks /etc/inet/ntp.client /etc/inet/ntp.server /etc/inet/protocols /etc/inet/services /etc/inet/sock2path /etc/inet/ntp.conf (disregard the CVS directory, it's for our internal housekeeping) Should we go the same route? Should we symlink our /etc directory to all hell and back, or screw backwards compatibility? What is our direction. I'm not advocating any of the ideas above, I just want to give everyone a little food for thought. Many questions need to be answered. Directory organization is something which is always a topic for argument, because everyone seems to have their own idea and be passionate about it. As far as myself, I don't really care, as long as /etc is only for config files :0 ======================================================================= Thomas Stromberg, Assistant IS Manager/Systems Guru smtp://tstromberg@rtci.com Research Triangle Consultants, Inc. http://afterthought.org 919.380.9771 x3210 ======================================================================= "if you do nothing enough, something's bound to happen.." ======================================================================= On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Yoshinobu Inoue wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > We're starting to get a lot of new files in /etc related to the > > IPV6 changes (which I think are a fabulous thing, don't get me > > wrong). Would it be worthwhile to follow the precedent of /etc/ssh and > > /etc/mail to lump these files together in their own directory? My personal > > feeling is that anything which needs 3 files or more should get a > > directory, and we just crossed that point with IPV6. > > I agree it, and thanks for the suggestion. :-) > I'll prepare for it. > > Yoshinobu Inoue To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Mar 15 14:46: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAB637BC8E for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:46:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA11779 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:48:25 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id XAA14437 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:45:50 +0100 (MET) Received: from sr14.nsw-remote.bigpond.net.au (sr14.nsw-remote.bigpond.net.au [24.192.3.29]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86CC837C053 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:44:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from areilly@nsw.bigpond.net.au) Received: from areilly.bpc-users.org (CPE-144-132-171-71.nsw.bigpond.net.au [144.132.171.71]) by sr14.nsw-remote.bigpond.net.au (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA10235 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:44:17 +1100 (EDT) Received: (qmail 86779 invoked by uid 1000); 15 Mar 2000 22:44:16 -0000 From: "Andrew Reilly" Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:44:16 +1100 To: Thomas Stromberg Cc: Yoshinobu Inoue , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time for an /etc/ipv6 directory? (restructure /etc?) Message-ID: <20000316094416.A84559@gurney.reilly.home> References: <20000315130310N.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 01:09:23PM -0500, Thomas Stromberg wrote: > Should we go the same route? Should we symlink our /etc directory to all > hell and back, or screw backwards compatibility? What is our > direction. I'm not advocating any of the ideas above, I just want to give > everyone a little food for thought. Many questions need to be answered. I think that symlink farms are a bad idea, and in this case they defeat the only purpose that increasing the depth of the /etc hierarchy could serve. > Directory organization is something which is always a topic for argument, > because everyone seems to have their own idea and be passionate about > it. As far as myself, I don't really care, as long as /etc is only for > config files :0 I'd like to see /etc eventually be replaced by a portal file system accessing a configuration database (maybe in LDAP). But I'm just saying that to be argumentative. -- Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Mar 15 15:26: 6 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF0237BE87 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:26:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA12033 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:28:32 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id AAA14514 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:26:00 +0100 (MET) Received: from barracuda.aquarium.rtci.com (barracuda.aquarium.rtci.com [208.11.247.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B68FF37BB57 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:24:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tstromberg@rtci.com) Received: from barracuda (barracuda [208.11.247.5]) by barracuda.aquarium.rtci.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA23378; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:24:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:24:38 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Stromberg X-Sender: tstromberg@barracuda.aquarium.rtci.com To: Andrew Reilly Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time for an /etc/ipv6 directory? (/etc in ldap?) In-Reply-To: <20000316094416.A84559@gurney.reilly.home> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I tend to agree here, I envision FreeBSD some day coming with OpenLDAP built in, reading most of the config from (through nsswitch, et al.) a directory service. Lots of problems would have to be conquered of course with a method like that, such as: - ease of getting the system up when it's broken enough that networking isn't happy but that single user still works. Anyone who's dealt with netinfo in NeXTstep knows what I'm talking about (especially when you forget the root password). - revision control. revision control is nice and easy with text files, we use it for all of our servers here. Some trickery would be involved. - ease of dealing with data. theres nothing like just having text files to pipe through. Having a virtual fs that's talking to the ldap server would of course be fun, but the whole issue of dependencies in having this work if the system is in single user mode gets messy. For example, I have a bad habit of preferring to mess with mysqldump files in perl rather then setting up the database queries & connectivity. nis+ admins can sympathize here. I also doubt that mergemaster will be directory aware to 'sync' any changes to the directory server for the files kept in it. The relationship of Directory Services and UNIX should be less outlandish now that Solaris 8 includes a 200,000 user license for iPlanet Directory Server, and the internal capabilities for using LDAP for nsswitch'd items. I can't wait for the day that I can setup custom ldap queries for who the valid accounts off of the main database should be on the system. As far as the symlink farms, I wholeheartedly agree. I won't even mention some of the nasty problems encountered when we first started maintaining all of the config as a cvs tree on our Solaris boxes. Symlinks are only good for backwards compat, but I'm not sure how many apps/scripts there are out there that actually expect to see /etc/protocols there rather then using OS functions. Evidentally there were enough for Sun to make a mess out of /etc. I do however doubt that /etc will dissappear any time soon with a directory server, or any kind of metabase. Theres just too much work/too little gain from putting it all in there. /etc/rc* isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon. I would like to however eventually see the tools required to move the standard stuff (/etc/passwd, /etc/group, /etc/hosts, etc.) through some scripts & nsswitch, and have the installation ask you whether or not you want to be setup as a Directory master or a Directory client. Not sure if any further discussion on this dreamy directory-based world should go to -hackers.. but I think I've spoken of utopia long enough now. ======================================================================= Thomas Stromberg, Assistant IS Manager/Systems Guru smtp://tstromberg@rtci.com Research Triangle Consultants, Inc. ======================================================================= "if you do nothing enough, something's bound to happen.." ======================================================================= On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Andrew Reilly wrote: > I think that symlink farms are a bad idea, and in this case they > defeat the only purpose that increasing the depth of the /etc > hierarchy could serve. > > I'd like to see /etc eventually be replaced by a portal file system > accessing a configuration database (maybe in LDAP). But I'm just > saying that to be argumentative. > > -- > Andrew > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Mar 17 21: 9:23 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D29B37B574 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:09:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA09581 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 06:11:56 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id GAA07007 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 06:09:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from holly.calldei.com (adsl-208-191-146-189.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net [208.191.146.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF8237B9A3 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:07:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris@holly.calldei.com) Received: (from chris@localhost) by holly.calldei.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA77697 for freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:06:33 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from chris) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:06:32 -0600 From: Chris Costello To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Proposal: Union mount of fdesc on top of /dev Message-ID: <20000317230632.I24374@holly.calldei.com> Reply-To: chris@calldei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Now that I've committed a change which fixes that pesky lstat() commit in fdesc, I'd like to suggest that it replace the existing /dev/fd devices and /dev/std{err,in,out}. I've already got such a setup running on a test box: Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/da0s1a 49583 25320 20297 56% / /dev/da0s1f 804119 697621 42169 94% /usr /dev/da0s1e 19815 840 17390 5% /var procfs 4 4 0 100% /proc fdesc 1 1 0 100% /dev And a little demonstration of the 'lightness' of fdesc over our oodles-of-device-nodes: total 0 crw------- 1 chris tty 5, 0 Mar 18 05:02 0 crw------- 1 chris tty 5, 0 Mar 18 05:02 1 crw------- 1 chris tty 5, 0 Mar 18 05:02 2 crw------- 1 chris tty 5, 0 Mar 18 05:02 3 crw------- 1 chris tty 5, 0 Mar 18 05:02 4 dr--r--r-- 2 root wheel 512 Mar 18 04:38 5 dr--r--r-- 2 root wheel 512 Mar 18 04:38 6 dr--r--r-- 2 root wheel 512 Mar 18 04:38 7 crw------- 1 chris tty 5, 0 Mar 18 05:02 9 Compared to our 63 device nodes, I think this is much nicer. Now I don't know about the file flags for 5, 6 and 7 here, or what the Right Thing(tm) to do is. Any feedback on either of these things? -- |Chris Costello |Using TSO is like kicking a dead whale down the beach. -- S. C. Johnson `------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Mar 17 21:10:42 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB95E37B54E for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:10:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA09593 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 06:13:08 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id GAA07025 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 06:10:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from holly.calldei.com (adsl-208-191-146-189.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net [208.191.146.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BA937B620 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:10:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chris@holly.calldei.com) Received: (from chris@localhost) by holly.calldei.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA77728 for freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:09:40 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from chris) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:09:39 -0600 From: Chris Costello To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: Union mount of fdesc on top of /dev Message-ID: <20000317230939.J24374@holly.calldei.com> Reply-To: chris@calldei.com References: <20000317230632.I24374@holly.calldei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.4i In-Reply-To: <20000317230632.I24374@holly.calldei.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Friday, March 17, 2000, Chris Costello wrote: > dr--r--r-- 2 root wheel 512 Mar 18 04:38 5 > dr--r--r-- 2 root wheel 512 Mar 18 04:38 6 > dr--r--r-- 2 root wheel 512 Mar 18 04:38 7 > Compared to our 63 device nodes, I think this is much nicer. > Now I don't know about the file flags for 5, 6 and 7 here, or > what the Right Thing(tm) to do is. Any feedback on either of > these things? Actually (duh), those were other files ls(1) had open. This will teach me to make proposals while half-asleep. -- |Chris Costello |If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some. `--------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message