Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:41:14 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: current@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-user@netscum.dk, usenet@tdk.net Subject: Re: your mail Message-ID: <14885.45114.457465.538275@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20001129122920.E88443@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200011290706.eAT76E516121@newsmangler.inet.tele.dk> <20001129122920.E88443@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> types: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 08:06:14AM +0100, News User wrote: > > I'm building news machines with two partitions for OSen, to allow > > me to boot into my choice, where my choice has been FreeBSD-STABLE > > or FreeBSD-CURRENT to see how the two compare, and if there are any > > significant improvements in -CURRENT. > > > > I know, ``don't do that'' but hey... > Except for stupidity in libdisk(I believe) and thus sysinstall, there is > no, none, zero reason why one cannot have two installations of FreeBSD in > two different slices on the same disk. Hmm - what's the stupidity? I have a test machine running both -current and -stable (and NetBSD-current, Solaris, Linux, and last and least Win98), and haven't encountered any problems with it. <mike -- Mike Meyer http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Unix/FreeBSD consultant, email for rates. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14885.45114.457465.538275>