Subject: Re: ffs compatibility added, fsck may complain
To: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 01/14/2004 21:41:14
Thus spake Frederick Bruckman ("FB> ") sometime Today...
FB> From: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
FB> To: Darrin B. Jewell <dbj@NetBSD.org>
FB> Cc: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org,
FB> Subject: Re: ffs compatibility added, fsck may complain
FB> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:45:55 -0600 (CST)
FB> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Darrin B. Jewell wrote:
FB> That one didn't work for me, either. It claimed to, but apparently
FB> nothing was changed. I did "fsck -Tffs:-b32", and then "fsck -Tffs:-c4",
FB> and each seemed to work, as viewed by "dumpfs". I guess it's doing the
FB> "-c4" first, then overwriting its work with "-b32"?
Is there ANY way we can not mandate the -T ffs:fsopts format and just
attempt to pass thru the options to fsck_ffs? If they work, they
work. If they don't, they don't. Having to type in all that crap
is an inflamed hemorrhoid.
Could we please make it so we can pass thru -b32 -c4 without -Tffs:...?
Or could we please make it so we can say -Tffs:option0,option1,option2...?
22 Ways to Get Yourself Killed While Watching 'The Lord Of The Rings':
#19: Release a jar of daddy-long-legs into the theater during the