Re: [Cooker] dosfstools-2.8-2mdk: no fsck.vfat

[Michael Reinsch]

Hi!

On Son, 19 Mai 2002 14:28:01 Pixel wrote:

> it used to be "unsafe" to use dosfsck. That's why it was better not to
> check fat's. This may have changed (i don't see any mention of danger
> in dosfsck)

Well, ok, dosfsck says, it's still alpha for fat32.

And it is probably wise to let windows destroy itself and not risk a 
possible problem because of a bug in dosfsck... so not checking fat 
partitions automatically is ok for me.

If mandrake doesn't want those symlinks to dosfsck (which I can 
understand), it would be nice if there would be a small fsck.vfat tool 
saying something like: "use dosfsck if you really want to check a fat 
partition, this might destroy it". Then everyone knows, what to do :)

Thanks.

-- 
   Michael Reinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://mr.uue.org

Re: [Cooker] dosfstools-2.8-2mdk: no fsck.vfat

[Pixel]

Michael Reinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Is it intentional that /sbin/fsck.vfat is missing from dosfstools?
> /sbin/dosfsck is present, only the symlink to /sbin/fsck.vfat (and
> /sbin/fsck.msdos) is IMHO missing.

it used to be "unsafe" to use dosfsck. That's why it was better not to
check fat's. This may have changed (i don't see any mention of danger
in dosfsck)

[Cooker] dosfstools-2.8-2mdk: no fsck.vfat

[Michael Reinsch]

Hi!

Is it intentional that /sbin/fsck.vfat is missing from dosfstools? 
/sbin/dosfsck is present, only the symlink to /sbin/fsck.vfat (and 
/sbin/fsck.msdos) is IMHO missing.

-- 
   Michael Reinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://mr.uue.org