Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:01:31 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Doug White <dwhite@gumbysoft.com> Cc: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Subject: Re: _<service> users [Was: startup error for pflogd] Message-ID: <40DA986B.6080108@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20040623201914.B92305@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: <20040620134437.P94503@fw.reifenberger.com> <20040622155106.C79584@carver.gumbysoft.com> <200406230114.19277.max@love2party.net> <20040623201914.B92305@carver.gumbysoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug White wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Max Laier wrote: > >>>I think its quite doable for 6.x; this gives ports a chance to get on >>>board without having a huge rush before 5.3 hits the street. >> >>I completely agree with you here. My question is, what should I do with >>pflogd? I don't see much point in creating user pflogd now, patching pflogd >>to use it and revert everything back for 6-current. So will it be much of a >>problem to add _pflogd now eventhough the rest of the daemons is not yet >>converted? > > Well, everything else is going to have to get patched too, so pflogd will > just ride the megacommit. :-) > > How many places is the username referenced in the code? I wouldn't think > it would pop up more than a couple of times. Or just make it a #define. That'd be the easier way to go. I'm sure Daniel is going to see the justification for this and feed that back to OpenBSD as well. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40DA986B.6080108>