Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 05:06:57 +0300 From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com> To: Brian Hechinger <BHechinger@half.com> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fsck wrappers Message-ID: <20000620050656.A9224@happy.checkpoint.com> In-Reply-To: <F997095BF6F8D3119E540090276AE53015D780@EXCHANGE01>; from BHechinger@half.com on Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 09:59:15PM -0400 References: <F997095BF6F8D3119E540090276AE53015D780@EXCHANGE01>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 09:59:15PM -0400, Brian Hechinger wrote: > but isn't there wisdom in implementing the wrapper as well? we won't be > using ffs forever (log based file system please!! *G*) Sure there is, I'm all for the wrapper. I just want "ufs is really ffs" to go away as well, and am using the opportunity that the issue surfaced up. I think the wrapper is a great idea, and reporting the mountpoint etc., asked about in a separate message, is great as well. -- Anatoly Vorobey, mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/ "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000620050656.A9224>