Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 05:56:32 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> To: strattbo@fsp1.physik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Thomas Stratmann) Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: e2fsprogs 1.32 working partly - should this import? Message-ID: <m3ptiv909b.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <20030821230241.GA19471@fsp1.physik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> (Thomas Stratmann's message of "Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:02:41 %2B0200") References: <20030821230241.GA19471@fsp1.physik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
strattbo@fsp1.physik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Thomas Stratmann) writes: > I was a bit too quick with my posting from yesterday - I do not have > gotten e2fsprogs version 1.32 working. But what I do have is this: > I altered the e2fsprogs port directory to update to 1.32, and as far as > I can see (I read the porters-handbook by now) it is a valid port. portlint will check the obvious issues. 1.34 seems to be somewhat smoother on FreeBSD (less fussing with Kerberos com/err related includes) and has some bug fixes over 1.32. I tried the e2fsprogs port recently but it wasn't working properly and I put it aside because it was not a priority item for me (at least I decided it was in a shape that wouldn't allow submission at that time). I haven't received much support from the e2fsprogs upstream yet, but I've managed to get Tytso to accept a make -> $(MAKE) patch three weeks ago so at least the Makefile will properly use gmake in 1.35, one patch less that the FreeBSD port shall need in the future. > fsck.ext2 works for me (and saved my life, now I can multiboot into my > linux again). All other major tools from the package probably don't > work. I only checked mke2fs, it is unable to get the device size > probably (some wrong iocontrol?). Are you using FreeBSD 5? As to the device size issue, I surmise that issues started with the 4.8->5.1 upgrade for me. Might be a devfs side effect, I may be able to see if e2fsprogs works on 4.8 though by nuking the swap partition. > AFAIK, this is the same with the old (1.27) version of the port. > The only difference: 1.27 couldn't check my filesystem due to > 'unsupported extensions', which the new version seems to handle. has_journal or needs_recovery (ext3), perhaps? :-> -- Matthias Andree
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3ptiv909b.fsf>