From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 15 23:42:47 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1298B37B401
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.econolodgetulsa.com (mail.econolodgetulsa.com
	[198.78.66.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E6143F3F
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from user@mail.econolodgetulsa.com)
Received: from mail (mail [198.78.66.163])h6G6gnnW078563
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from user@mail.econolodgetulsa.com)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Josh Brooks <user@mail.econolodgetulsa.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20030715233938.P36933-100000@mail.econolodgetulsa.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: No /proc or procfs by default in 5.1-RELEASE ... why ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:42:47 -0000


Hello,

As I am sure many have noticed, a default installation of 5.1-RELEASE will
leave you with no procfs mounted at /proc, and no entry in /etc/fstab for
a procfs.

Is this by design ?

Is it better to not run /proc on 5.x ?

What are the consequences of running without a procfs on 5.x ?


OR


Was this just a bug/oversight in the 5.1-RELEASE, and in reality we should
definitely be running a procfs and have an entry in /etc/fstab, etc. ?


This is with the GENERIC kernel, but other kernels I build with PROCFS
also do not result in a procfs existing either - I always have to manually
mount it.


Any commnts of any kind related to the design decision that may have been
behind this - or any explanation of a kind as to why the 5.1-RELEASE has
no procfs mounted or in fstab by default is much apprecaited!

thanks!