Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 04:33:32 -0800 (PST) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ft Message-ID: <199612131233.EAA13627@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <199612130858.JAA17212@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Dec 13, 96 09:58:54 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
J Wunsch wrote: > > As Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > > > > Is "ft" working at current? > > > Thanks. > > > > not really, use lft instead. > > ``Not really'' is wrong, though. It works the same way it always > worked. The weakest point is IMHO the driver itself, which is > orphaned and seeks a maintainer. > > However, if `lft' works better in some respects than `ft(8)', why > don't you commit it to the tree? I understand that we can't drop the > old utility since both are incompatible, but nobody says we can't have > two. no commit privs. (thought jordan does threaten from time to time) the present situaton allows me to bitch from the sidelines with having to get my clothes dirty on the field. jmb FreeBSD Postmaster and Commentator
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612131233.EAA13627>