From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Dec 13 04:33:46 1996
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id EAA13633
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 04:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jmb@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id EAA13627;
          Fri, 13 Dec 1996 04:33:32 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb>
Message-Id: <199612131233.EAA13627@freefall.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: ft
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 04:33:32 -0800 (PST)
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199612130858.JAA17212@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Dec 13, 96 09:58:54 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

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