Subject: Re: bin/26883
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Hauke Fath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/24/2005 14:52:29
Am 24.06.2005 um 11:31 Uhr +0000 schrieb email@example.com:
>I've changed the description for -a in newfs(8) to read:
>"This sets the obsolete maxcontig parameter."
>Does that solve the problem for you?
It seems to me that you have misunderstood the issue, and you didn't
look at the code properly. Please back out the rev. 1.65 change of
sbin/newfs/newfs.8, and set the PR back to 'open'.
(1) 'obsolete'? The newfs(8) '-a' option has code behind it. Remove
that code (and I'd argue you shouldn't), and _then_ remove the man
page entry. In that sequence, exactly, *not* the other way round. In
what way is an option to define the physical layout of a filesystem
(2) You did nothing to address my complaint that the tunefs(8) man
page is out of sync with both the code and references from the
newfs(8) man page.
(3) I see there is a one-liner for 'newfs -d' now, but it lacks an
explanation of "extent size", falling short of the rest of the
newfs(8) man page's clarity.
*As a sysadmin, I should not need to read newfs.c to understand what
the options to newfs do.*
/~\ The ASCII Ribbon Campaign Hauke Fath
\ / No HTML/RTF in email Institut für Nachrichtentechnik
X No Word docs in email TU Darmstadt
/ \ Respect for open standards Ruf +49-6151-16-3281