Re: ITP: xfs-xtt
17.11.99 Paul Slootman (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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:email@example.com.|.M.L.Baran.] ____
_____ /o`,- ). [.........|..pl..http://superson.|.J.u.b.a.l.] ______
_____ (_,.'-'rs [..pany!..|.ic.pdi.net/~baran/...|..cert.AI..] ________
Down with categorical imperative!