From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jun 19 19: 5:49 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from happy.checkpoint.com (happy.checkpoint.com [199.203.156.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C0837B986; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:05:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mellon@pobox.com) Received: (from mellon@localhost) by happy.checkpoint.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09250; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 05:06:58 +0300 (IDT) (envelope-from mellon@pobox.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 05:06:57 +0300 From: Anatoly Vorobey To: Brian Hechinger Cc: Adrian Chadd , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fsck wrappers Message-ID: <20000620050656.A9224@happy.checkpoint.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from BHechinger@half.com on Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 09:59:15PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 09:59:15PM -0400, Brian Hechinger wrote: > but isn't there wisdom in implementing the wrapper as well? we won't be > using ffs forever (log based file system please!! *G*) Sure there is, I'm all for the wrapper. I just want "ufs is really ffs" to go away as well, and am using the opportunity that the issue surfaced up. I think the wrapper is a great idea, and reporting the mountpoint etc., asked about in a separate message, is great as well. -- Anatoly Vorobey, mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/ "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message