Cy Schubert wrote:
>
> > > Due to the lack of interest, FreeBSD's LFS has fallen into disrepair
> > > over the years. With the implementation of softupdates in FreeBSD I
> > > don't think there is any need for LFS any more.
> >
> > Repeat that over and over the next time you wait fsck finish a 40 Gb
> > filesystem checkup, and see if you manage to convince yourself of that.
>
> Read the CVS logs and tell me how you could interpret the comments any
> differently:
>
> 1.21 Fri Jan 30 11:33:40 1998 UTC by phk
> CVS Tags: HEAD
> Diffs to 1.20
> FILE REMOVED
>
> Retire LFS.
>
> If you want to play with it, you can find the final version of the
> code in the repository the tag LFS_RETIREMENT.
>
> If somebody makes LFS work again, adding it back is certainly
> desireable, but as it is now nobody seems to care much about it,
> and it has suffered considerable bitrot since its somewhat haphazard
> integration.
>
> R.I.P
>
> Obviously you don't know what you're talking about either. Do you?
I do know. The main reason why LFS was never updated isn't that it was
made obsolete by softupdates, as claimed above, but that it was made
obsolete by JFS. Why work on LFS if it is not up to a JFS?
Unfortunately, the people who have to suffer enourmous waits after
crashes usually have way more to do, even if they have the skills to fix
LFS.
With the disks getting bigger and bigger, this is due to change.
BTW, NetBSD is happy with _their_ _functional_ LFS.
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"If you consider our help impolite, you should see the manager."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
