From owner-freebsd-current Mon Sep 23 10:13:50 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA17171 for current-outgoing; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 10:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server.netcraft.co.uk (server.netcraft.co.uk [194.72.238.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA17074 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 10:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jez@localhost) by server.netcraft.co.uk (8.7.5/8.6.9) id SAA10123 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:12:50 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Prior Message-Id: <199609231712.SAA10123@server.netcraft.co.uk> Subject: ncheck and a multi-lingual fsck To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org (FreeBSD's Current Mailing List) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:12:49 +0100 (BST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL24 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk All, I've always missed the lack of ncheck(8) in FreeBSD - The 4.4BSD manual page for it is wrong - its functionality is not obsoleted by fsck(8)! Specifically, I miss ncheck's `-s' option (find / -perm ... is no substitute). My nostalgia turned into desperation when find started falling over with an out-of-memory error in our news-spool partition during the nightly /etc/security run. (Sorry, I don't have the error message to hand - I can let people have it after tonight's run if they're interested :-) I was about to write an ncheck clone (using fsck as a starting point), and had even got to the point of soliciting sample output for other vendor's versions, when I discovered that one already exists! OpenBSD has had ncheck (actually ncheck_ffs) since mid August. So, I fetched, built, and installed their ncheck (no changes needed other than the name :-), and it works fine! I'm currently in the process of rewriting my /etc/security to use it. Anyway, I'm now wondering whether I should with it. My options are: 1. keep it to myself and shut up :-) 2. submit it as-is, and let someone else decide what to do with it; (I could also submit chkdsk(8) - aka fsck_msdos at the same time...) or 3. go the whole way and submit it as part of a general `cleanup', where each of the fs-dependent programs (fsck, ncheck, ...) are called by an fs-independent parent (I'd use mount(8) as the template). What do other people think? Do people want this? Am I treading on anyone else's toes? by doing this :-) Opinions? jez -- Jeremy Prior Netcraft, Rockfield House, Granville Road, Bath, BA1 9BQ, England Tel: +44-1225-447500 Fax: +44-1225-448600