Daniel Schepler dixit: >It would probably be a better idea to remove the sysctl(2) code altogether, as
No, because sysctl is perfectly fine for use e.g. in chroots or on systems where Linux procfs has not been mounted, e.g. to gather some entropy in the absence of /dev/urandom (from random_uuid), or other cases. (Speaking as a BSD developer.) >the kernel support is unmaintained anyway, and as I understand it the kernel >complains to the dmesg log if sysctl is ever actually used. Still, removing it for architectures where it worked before is a regression. Also, whenever the Linux kernel developers gain some sense, they can just add sysctl to x32 and it will work. Also, more realistically, I prefer to provide minimal-invasive patches to upstream first, and do things like this only later or leave them up to upstream, especially if they have political dimensions. bye, //mirabilos -- 13:37⎜«Natureshadow» Deep inside, I hate mirabilos. I mean, he's a good guy. But he's always right! In every fsckin' situation, he's right. Even with his deeply perverted taste in software and borked ambition towards broken OSes - in the end, he's damn right about it :(! […] works in mksh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
