From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 27 19:56:52 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC1237B401 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net (sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net [65.242.152.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CAD443FB1 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:56:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jpb@sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net) Received: from sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net (localhost.v6.thrupoint.net [127.0.0.1]) by sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89BE44CFB for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:56:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jpb@localhost)h3S2uoKF077012 for freebsd-doc@freebsd.org; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:56:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:56:50 -0400 From: Jim Brown To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030428025650.GB76769@sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: Little UFS2 FAQ X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 02:56:52 -0000 * Chris Pepper [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 ===