From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Mar 24 14:30:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA14582 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:30:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA14571 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id XAA27586; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:30:15 +0100 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA09585; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:49:17 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <19970324214916.YH08116@uriah.heep.sax.de> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:49:16 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: hackers@freebsd.org, port-i386@netbsd.org Cc: darrenr@cyber.com.au (Darren Reed) Subject: Re: dump for MS-DOS partitions. References: <199703241237.XAA29393@plum.cyber.com.au> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.60_p2-3,5,8-9 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199703241237.XAA29393@plum.cyber.com.au>; from Darren Reed on Mar 24, 1997 23:37:26 +1100 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Darren Reed wrote: > Well, after a days work, it's done. well, I think it works :) Not bad. ;-) > Unfortunately, restore doesn't work with the dump file created, but I'm > not sure yet whether it is because it isn't a UFS dump or I've not done > something right. Restore shouldn't be much dependent on UFS features. Unlike (ufs)dump, it works at file level, not at disk level. > If you want to grab it and play, it is at: > > ftp://ftp.cyber.com.au/pub/unix/msdump.tgz Better name it `dosdump'? Remember, there's more DOSes than just M$. Also, we do already have a mkdosfs(8), maybe somebody would even write a dosfsck(8). (mkdosfs doesn't understand harddisks however. I'm not the right person to ask for this, my DOS knowledge is too weak.) Ideally, all this should probably named s/dos/fat/g. It's a more descriptive name of this filesystem. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)