I didnt mean to imply that you can fsck your fs with nbsd flop. I only
mean that you can MOUNT a fs that needs to be fscked. Being that theonly
two options are obsd and nbsd flops (obsd wouldnt mount, nbsd did) I found
that nbsd flop is really handy. 

Cheers,
BUGO Founder

BSD Users Group of Orlando: http://bugo.zepa.net
---
"Linux is something for Windows haters, BSD is something for Unix lovers"
(Heike S., Febr. 98) 
"Beneath revolution (Linux) there's also evolution (*BSD)" 
(Andre Oppermann, Apr. 98) 
"I view Linux as something that's not Microsoft-a backlash against
Microsoft, no more and no less."
(Ken Thompson, 99)

On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Christos Zoulas wrote:

> In article <Pine.NEB.4.05.9907190857001.2227-100000@7thsun.piermont.com>,
> Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Preston Vega wrote:
> >
> >> Btw, the syboot NetBSD flop makes an excellent recovery diskette for those
> >> with Solaris installed. I was rather impressed. I tried to mount the fs
> >> with an obsd diskette and it didnt work. NetBSD flop mounted it even
> >> though it needed to be fsck'ed.
> >
> >Err...is it still the case that you shouldn't fsck, or even mount
> >R/W, a solaris partition under NetBSD? Or was it the other way
> >around? I understood that one writing the other would mean the
> >other could no longer read it, but I forget which direction this
> >went in.
> >
> 
> Ok. here's the scoop:
> 
> Filesystems created with < Solaris-2.7 that do not have ACL's work fine.
> If you have ACL's and you fsck under NetBSD, you'll blow your ACL's.
> If you don't fsck and you mount under NetBSD, you risk corruption.
> 
> Solaris 2.7 also supports journalling. If you have turned this on and you
> mount a Solaris-2.7 filesystem under netbsd (I have not tried that), you'll
> lose any data that was in the transaction log, plus ACL's, plus other things
> that I am not aware of.
> 
> christos
>