> At this point, we could have stably released 1.2 and been well on our way
> to putting 1.3 together; instead we're still sitting here running 1.2B which
> isn't likely to change by the time the next -current gets underway.

1.2_BETA != 1.2B, but the point remains the same.


> Curiously, why is there an "fsck_ffs"?  Do we plan on fsck'ing any other
> kinds of filesystems?

In a word, "yes."

> Do we currently support "fsck_msdos"?

No, but since we have an msdos file system, and that's a "real"
file system complete with bits on a disk someplace, we should.

same goes for LFS (or would if the version in our tree worked),
and for the AmigaDOS file system.



cgd