Let me rephrase - this is the only explanation I'm going to provide:
_I_ am not going to remove it. If others feel so strongly that they
would rather remove existing functionality (as ugly as it is), then
_they_ can do the deed.
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, Wolfgang Solfrank wrote:
Hi,
We all agree that filemon(4) is an ugly hack. It probably should never
have gotten committed. But it is there now, and there are a (very) few
use-cases. So we don't want to remove it without having a replacement
implementation.
Well, can you explain? Why would we not want to remove it and be done
with that nonsense?
Ciao,
Wolfgang
--
wolfg...@solfrank.net Wolfgang Solfrank
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| Paul Goyette | PGP Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: |
| (Retired) | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com |
| Kernel Developer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at netbsd.org |
+------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
