Re: state or future of LFS?

To: Wouter Klouwen <dublet%acm.org@localhost>, David Holland <dholland-current%netbsd.org@localhost>, matthew sporleder <msporleder%gmail.com@localhost>, Andreas Gustafsson <gson%gson.org@localhost>, current-users%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-users%netbsd.org@localhost, Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%rek.tjls.com@localhost>, gilbert.fernandes%orange.fr@localhost, Niels Dettenbach <nd%syndicat.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: state or future of LFS?
From: David Holland <dholland-current%netbsd.org@localhost>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 06:52:17 +0000

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 09:47:00AM +0000, Wouter Klouwen wrote:
 > I'm not trying to take away anything from all the effort that's gone into
 > it, and all of your developers are very clever people, but if LFS suffers
 > from UFS problems, won't any other FS that tries to use UFS? (Apart from
 > FFS, of course.)

Well, yes...

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost

References:
- state or future of LFS?
  - From: Niels Dettenbach
- Re: state or future of LFS?
  - From: gilbert . fernandes
- Re: state or future of LFS?
  - From: Thor Lancelot Simon
- Re: state or future of LFS?
  - From: Andreas Gustafsson
- Re: state or future of LFS?
  - From: matthew sporleder
- Re: state or future of LFS?
  - From: Wouter Klouwen
- Re: state or future of LFS?
  - From: David Holland
- Re: state or future of LFS?
  - From: Wouter Klouwen

Prev by Date: Re: when using WAPBL (mount -o log)
Next by Date: Re: state or future of LFS?
Previous by Thread: Re: state or future of LFS?
Next by Thread: RE: state or future of LFS?
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index