From owner-freebsd-current Fri Feb 24 21:22:49 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id VAA06529 for current-outgoing; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 21:22:49 -0800 Received: from estienne.cs.berkeley.edu (estienne.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.42.147]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA06523 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 21:22:48 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by estienne.cs.berkeley.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA02279; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 21:22:12 -0800 Message-Id: <199502250522.VAA02279@estienne.cs.berkeley.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: estienne.cs.berkeley.edu: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: lfs ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 24 Feb 1995 20:41:16 PST." <199502250441.UAA16372@ref.tfs.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 21:22:11 -0800 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >Is it still the case that having more than one LFS on a machine is stupid ? >-- >Poul-Henning Kamp >TRW Financial Systems, Inc. >I am Pentium Of Borg. Division is Futile. You WILL be approximated. Having even one LFS on a system (other than 2.0R) is stupid. Once LFS is reintegrated into current, having more than one will be possible. -- Justin T. Gibbs ============================================== TCS Instructional Group - Programmer/Analyst 1 Cory | Po | Danube | Volga | Parker | Torus ==============================================