From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Sep  5 19:26:53 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id TAA16906
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:26:53 -0700
Received: from alpha.xerox.com (alpha.Xerox.COM [13.1.64.93])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA16898
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:26:51 -0700
Received: from crevenia.parc.xerox.com ([13.2.116.11]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <14607(5)>; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:26:17 PDT
Received: from localhost by crevenia.parc.xerox.com with SMTP id <177475>; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:26:10 -0700
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.1 5/23/95
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Bad superblock? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 05 Sep 95 18:42:12 PDT."
             <199509060142.SAA25004@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:26:01 PDT
From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <95Sep5.192610pdt.177475@crevenia.parc.xerox.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <199509060142.SAA25004@phaeton.artisoft.com> you write:
>Peter wants the fsck to honor the clean flag, but doesn't want to update
>to a file system type that supports clean flags in the first place.

I thought Peter wanted the 1.x fsck to not fail horribly and require a manual 
fsck run, not that he wanted it to support the clean flag...

  Bill