Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 18:35:21 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: thorpej@nas.nasa.gov Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@freebsd.org, port-i386@netbsd.org, darrenr@cyber.com.au Subject: Re: dump for MS-DOS partitions. Message-ID: <199703250135.SAA24334@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199703242332.PAA10523@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> from "Jason Thorpe" at Mar 24, 97 03:32:37 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > ftp://ftp.cyber.com.au/pub/unix/msdump.tgz > > > > Better name it `dosdump'? Remember, there's more DOSes than just M$. > > Also, we do already have a mkdosfs(8), maybe somebody would even write > > a dosfsck(8). (mkdosfs doesn't understand harddisks however. I'm not > > the right person to ask for this, my DOS knowledge is too weak.) > > ..actually... I'd suggest a naming scheme that NetBSD is using: > > newfs_msdos > fsck_msdos > mount_msdos > dump_msdos > > The name is, of course, the string used to identify the file system > in the vfssw[]. > > Just a suggestion :-) Curious: why aren't they using it as a prefix instead of a suffix? It would seem to make more sense as a prefix, for all sorts fo string manipulation reasons, including argv[ 0] and _ replacement with 0 for string split issues... Is it just that SVR4 does it with prefixes, and NIH rules? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703250135.SAA24334>