Subject: Re: bin/26883
To: Hauke Fath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Peter Postma <email@example.com>
Date: 06/24/2005 15:25:28
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 02:52:29PM +0200, Hauke Fath wrote:
> Am 24.06.2005 um 11:31 Uhr +0000 schrieb firstname.lastname@example.org:
> >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?
> Well, no.
> 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'.
> The reasoning:
> (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
> obsolete, btw.?
Yes obsolete, according to email@example.com:
Note that I have no clue about UFS/FFS so that's why I asked on tech-kern
what to do. Note that I'm trying to fix things _for you_, since this PR
was marked serious and submitted ~9 months ago, so I wanted to do something
about it. But it seems that you can't appreciate this.. fine, whatever.
> (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.*
Note that this is a volunteer project, the way you're complaining is
not very motivating for, well, at least me.