From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jan 31 11:15:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20638 for current-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:15:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (sri-gw.MT.net [206.127.105.141]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA20632 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:15:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA00239; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:14:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA20962; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:14:49 -0700 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:14:49 -0700 Message-Id: <199801311914.MAA20962@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Garrett Wollman , Terry Lambert , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: LFS is nuked? In-Reply-To: <4362.886232468@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <199801310108.UAA23804@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <4362.886232468@critter.freebsd.dk> X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe current" > >> Of course, we all know that once something is in the attic, it's > >> bound to be studiosly attended to, just like the XNS, ISO, and > >> X.25 code have all been fixed... > > > >But unlike XNS, ISO-CLNS, and X.25, LFS might actually be of value to > >real users. > > ... But appearantly not enough added value to make anybody actually > make it work. > > QED: The attic is the right place. > > And yes, personally I belive that portals & unionfs could go the same > way... Except that unionfs has been worked on consistantly, and should be left since it has an active maintainer. Nate