Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:36:24 +1100 (EST) From: Darren Reed <darrenr@cyber.com.au> To: christos@nyc.deshaw.com (Christos Zoulas) Cc: port-i386@NetBSD.ORG, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dump for MS-DOS partitions. Message-ID: <199703242336.KAA01685@plum.cyber.com.au> In-Reply-To: <E7KKr8.HEK.B.deputy@deshaw.com> from "Christos Zoulas" at Mar 24, 97 10:49:56 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In some mail I received from Christos Zoulas, sie wrote > > In article <19970324214916.YH08116@uriah.heep.sax.de> joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) writes: > >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.) > > > >Ideally, all this should probably named s/dos/fat/g. It's a more > >descriptive name of this filesystem. > > We do have fsck_msdos, and we are using your mkdosfs as newfs_msdos... > The dump should become dump_msdos... > It would be nice if we shared the same naming conventions. hmmm... dumplfs, newlfs, dump, newfs... ...newlfs doesn't really fit in but the convention of using prog_fstype seems to have merit (if dumplfs & newlfs are renamed too). but, with VFAT, FAT12, FAT16 and now maybe FAT32, is "_msdos" descriptive enough ? Darren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703242336.KAA01685>