Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:58:54 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org (FreeBSD-current users) Cc: jmb@freefall.freebsd.org (Jonathan M. Bresler) Subject: Re: ft Message-ID: <199612130858.JAA17212@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199612130058.QAA27958@freefall.freebsd.org> from "Jonathan M. Bresler" at "Dec 12, 96 04:58:24 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612130858.JAA17212>