Subject: Re: newfs/newlfs/newfs_msdos (was Re: Some LFS troubles)
To: Kevin P. Neal <>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 03/11/1999 17:30:42
"Kevin P. Neal" <> writes:
> > newfs should just be a link to newfs_ffs... and newfs_xxx for all other
> > xxx should just be invoked manualls.
> Wouldn't it be preferrable to be consistent?

A foolish consistency...

> Do you really want a set of filesystem admin programs that accept a
> filesystem type and then, like, one program that doesn't?
> mount -t lfs blah
> fsck -t lfs blah
> but
> newfs_lfs blah
> ?

Sure.  what harm is it?

There's concrete benefit to having fsck and mount do work that way.
is there any concrete benefit to having newfs behave that way?

i mean, ok, fine, i guess you could replace newfs with a simple script
which checks to see if -t is the first arg, and, if so tries to invoke
the newfs named by the second arg with the rest of the args...

but what does that really buy you?

> Has anyone thought about {dump,restore}_{ffs,lfs,etc} and so on?

not really, but they probably should.

for reasonable consistency, lack of directory pollution, and lack of
name redundancy, i'm for:


if it really does come to that.  then just have top-level scripts that
do the -t thing and invoke the right program in the right dir.

Chris Demetriou - -
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.