Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:56:50 -0400 From: Jim Brown <jpb@sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net> To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Little UFS2 FAQ Message-ID: <20030428025650.GB76769@sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net> In-Reply-To: <p06001006bad1e7efe655@[66.92.104.201]> References: <20030423134528.GB25484@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> <9C93B960-7598-11D7-9A25-000393754B1C@vangelderen.org> <20030423143657.GA26982@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> <20030423144641.GA418@nitro.dk> <20030423170113.GE26749@unixpages.org> <20030424010352.GB1811@nitro.dk> <20030426061732.GA69855@sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net> <p06001006bad1e7efe655@[66.92.104.201]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Chris Pepper <pepper@reppep.com> [2003-04-27 18:47]: > At 2:17 AM -0400 2003/04/26, Jim Brown wrote: > [snips below...] > > I've taken a look at the FAQ. My suggested patch is at the bottom of this message, but there are a few bits I don't have proposed fixes for. Patched- thanks. > > Program names (like fsck) need to be tagged. I ran into trouble trying to get &man.fsck_ffs.8 to validate. I'll research this later- but it looks on the surface that &man.foo_bar.# has problems validating. Does anyone else have this problem? > This explanation is much needed, but not detailed enough. Are they both really considered 'file systems'? Added the link to the original FFS paper. > > State whether fsck is UFS2-friendly. Answered in the article. Apparently you need a new superblock as well. > > > NetBSD mentions should include the version when UFS2 was introduced. I'll try to find out... Thanks for the review! Best Regards, jpb ===
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030428025650.GB76769>