[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ITP: xfs-xtt

17.11.99 Paul Slootman (paul@wau.mis.ah.nl) wrote:

> On Wed 17 Nov 1999, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > 
> > I wonder how xfs-xtt compares to the existing xfstt package. Is
> > there a reason that it does not conflict with xfstt ? xfstt seems
> > to run alongside with xfs, while xfs-xtt replaces xfs. Any
> > advantages/disadvantages of the one or the other method ?
> > 
> > If we really have both packages in the archive, it would be nice if
> > they could point out their pros and cons compared to the competing
> > package in their README.Debian's.
> Well, I have the distinct impression that xfstt suffers from a memory
> leak. It was up to VSZ 14124 here. Upon stopping and starting, it was
> back to 1712, and to 6400 after some mild usage.

I wonder, why xfs-tt or xfstt, and not xfsft. I'm using Juliusz
Chroboczek's patches on my machine and it works just fine...


_____   ,.--.   [.alchemy.|.mailto:baran@knm.org.|.M.L.Baran.] ____
_____  /o`,- ). [.........|..pl..http://superson.|.J.u.b.a.l.] ______
_____ (_,.'-'rs [..pany!..|.ic.pdi.net/~baran/...|..cert.AI..] ________

                    Down with categorical imperative!

Reply to: