From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Sep  6 04:45:21 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id EAA13244
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 04:45:21 -0700
Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id EAA13236
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 04:45:18 -0700
Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA06264
  (5.67a/IDA-1.5); Wed, 6 Sep 1995 06:31:58 -0500
Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id GAA14663; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 06:13:29 -0500
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Message-Id: <199509061113.GAA14663@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: Bad superblock?
To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 06:13:28 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: peter@taronga.com, terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199509060220.MAA31925@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Sep 6, 95 12:20:32 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 203       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> The 1.1.5 fsck fails on file systems that have been used under 2.x
> because sees something _other_ than the clean flag being different.

Aha. So the answer to my original question is "no". Thank you.