From owner-freebsd-current Sun May 26 16:30:40 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA09434 for current-outgoing; Sun, 26 May 1996 16:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linus.demon.co.uk (linus.demon.co.uk [158.152.10.220]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA09414 for ; Sun, 26 May 1996 16:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mark@localhost) by linus.demon.co.uk (8.7.5/8.7.3) id AAA25879 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Mon, 27 May 1996 00:31:06 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199605262331.AAA25879@linus.demon.co.uk> From: mark@linus.demon.co.uk (Mark Valentine) Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 00:31:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Marc G. Fournier"'s message of May 26, 5:18pm X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(3) 7/19/95) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem Report misc/355... Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > From: "Marc G. Fournier" > Date: Sun 26 May, 1996 > Subject: Problem Report misc/355... > Is there any reason for *not* doing the following? I've forwarded Marc a couple of relevant messages from Rod last year about how non-trivial it is to fix this without breaking things... The short answer to the above question seems to be "yes". Mark. -- Mark Valentine at Home