Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities]
Hi all On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:37:45AM +0200, Fabien Combernous wrote: [...] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > >Hi I don't know if there is something in Linux Standard Base about this, in > >wich case I think it would be the right direction > > > > I do agree with this point of view. I think LSB have to be used if possible. > The only thing I have found about it is: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-3.14.html regards Ulisses Debian GNU/Linux: a dream come true - "Computers are useless. They can only give answers."Pablo Picasso --->Visita http://www.valux.org/ para saber acerca de la<--- --->Asociación Valenciana de Usuarios de Linux <--- ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:56:53PM -0400, Barry Arndt wrote: We would like to rename the JFS utilities for [...] Hi I don't know if there is something in Linux Standard Base about this, in wich case I think it would be the right direction I do agree with this point of view. I think LSB have to be used if possible. [...] -- Fabien COMBERNOUS - IT Engineer eProcess - Parc Club du Millénaire Batiment n° 6 1025 rue Henri Becquerel - 34000 Montpellier FRANCE http://www.eprocess.fr - +33 (0)4 67 13 84 50 ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities
On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:58, Scott Russell wrote: > If it's an 'obscure' option then the way to handle is to use a long > opt only I think. fsck.jfs --something. That way there is no > confusion and a user won't 'accidentally' invoke it. Yeah, that would help avoid confusion. --replay_journal_only gets my vote unless someone suggests a shorter name that is just as obvious. -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:45, Scott Russell wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:41:12PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > > On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > I know :) That's why I think it should be a "only replay log" > > > > option to fsck instead of a standalone util. > > > > > > Okay. I agree. I was just making sure I understood. -l conflicts > > > with an e2fsck flag though. Maybe -O (opposite of -o). > > > > -0 and -O look very similar on a tty. Avoid -0 or -O IMHO. > > Good point. Both -p and -n together (or -a and -n)? If it's an 'obscure' option then the way to handle is to use a long opt only I think. fsck.jfs --something. That way there is no confusion and a user won't 'accidentally' invoke it. just my 0.2 -- Scott Russell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Linux Technology Center, System Admin, RHCE. Dial 877-735-8200 then ask for 919-543-9289 (TTY) ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities
On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:45, Scott Russell wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:41:12PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > I know :) That's why I think it should be a "only replay log" > > > option to fsck instead of a standalone util. > > > > Okay. I agree. I was just making sure I understood. -l conflicts > > with an e2fsck flag though. Maybe -O (opposite of -o). > > -0 and -O look very similar on a tty. Avoid -0 or -O IMHO. Good point. Both -p and -n together (or -a and -n)? -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:41:12PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I know :) That's why I think it should be a "only replay log" option > > to fsck instead of a standalone util. > > Okay. I agree. I was just making sure I understood. -l conflicts with > an e2fsck flag though. Maybe -O (opposite of -o). -0 and -O look very similar on a tty. Avoid -0 or -O IMHO. -- Scott Russell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Linux Technology Center, System Admin, RHCE. Dial 877-735-8200 then ask for 919-543-9289 (TTY) ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities
On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I know :) That's why I think it should be a "only replay log" option > to fsck instead of a standalone util. Okay. I agree. I was just making sure I understood. -l conflicts with an e2fsck flag though. Maybe -O (opposite of -o). -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:31:59PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > logdump => jfs_logdump > > > logredo => jfs_logredo > > > > should be merged into fsck, imho. > > just make it fsck -l or so and document that). > > Which one(s)? logredo? Yes. > This one is already built into fsck. The only > nice thing about a stand-alone version is that you can replay the log > without the possibility of running the whole fsck. This is good for > debugging, but it could probably be accomplished with a new fsck flag > that says replay log only. I know :) That's why I think it should be a "only replay log" option to fsck instead of a standalone util. ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities
On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > logdump => jfs_logdump > > logredo => jfs_logredo > > should be merged into fsck, imho. > just make it fsck -l or so and document that). Which one(s)? logredo? This one is already built into fsck. The only nice thing about a stand-alone version is that you can replay the log without the possibility of running the whole fsck. This is good for debugging, but it could probably be accomplished with a new fsck flag that says replay log only. logdump? It probably makes more sense to be merged into jfs_debugfs, if it is merged at all. jfs_debugfs, jfs_logdump, and jfs_fscklog are only useful as debugging tools and I don't think the code should be in the fsck.jfs binary. > > xpeek=> jfs_debug > > jfs_debugfs? Fine with me. -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities
> > fsck.jfs => jfs_fsck > > (a hard link will be created for fsck.jfs) > > agapito:/tape# locate fsck. | grep bin > /sbin/fsck.ext2 > /sbin/fsck.ext3 fsck.ext2 and fsck.ext3 are hard linked to e2fsck > /sbin/fsck.minix > /sbin/fsck.msdos fsck.msdos is hard linked to dosfsck > /sbin/fsck.nfs <- plese note, that even nfs has a fsck for real consistency > /sbin/fsck.vfat > > > mkfs.jfs => jfs_mkfs > > (a hard link will be created for mkfs.jfs) > > agapito:/tape# locate mkfs. | grep bin > /sbin/mkfs.ext2 > /sbin/mkfs.ext3 mkfs.ext2 and mkfs.ext3 are hard linked to mke2fs > /sbin/mkfs.minix > /sbin/mkfs.msdos mkfs.msdos is hard linked to mkdosfs > /sbin/mkfs.vfat > > [...] > Barry Arndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM Linux Technology Center JFS for Linux http://oss.software.ibm.com/jfs ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities]
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:56:53PM -0400, Barry Arndt wrote: > We would like to rename the JFS utilities for [...] Hi I don't know if there is something in Linux Standard Base about this, in wich case I think it would be the right direction > consistency and to have more meaningful names. consicency [...] > fsck.jfs => jfs_fsck > (a hard link will be created for fsck.jfs) agapito:/tape# locate fsck. | grep bin /sbin/fsck.ext2 /sbin/fsck.ext3 /sbin/fsck.minix /sbin/fsck.msdos /sbin/fsck.nfs <- plese note, that even nfs has a fsck for real consistency /sbin/fsck.vfat > mkfs.jfs => jfs_mkfs > (a hard link will be created for mkfs.jfs) agapito:/tape# locate mkfs. | grep bin /sbin/mkfs.ext2 /sbin/mkfs.ext3 /sbin/mkfs.minix /sbin/mkfs.msdos /sbin/mkfs.vfat [...] That's what I would say consistency regards Ulisses Debian GNU/Linux: a dream come true - "Computers are useless. They can only give answers."Pablo Picasso --->Visita http://www.valux.org/ para saber acerca de la<--- --->Asociación Valenciana de Usuarios de Linux <--- ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
Re: [Jfs-discussion] Renaming JFS Utilities
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:56:53PM -0400, Barry Arndt wrote: > We would like to rename the JFS utilities for > consistency and to have more meaningful names. > We will then ship them as part of a jfsutils > dot release. > > It has been suggested that we preface the utility > names with jfs_. The proposed names are as follows: > > > fsck.jfs => jfs_fsck > (a hard link will be created for fsck.jfs) > > mkfs.jfs => jfs_mkfs > (a hard link will be created for mkfs.jfs) > > logdump => jfs_logdump > logredo => jfs_logredo should be merged into fsck, imho. just make it fsck -l or so and document that). > xpeek=> jfs_debug jfs_debugfs? ___ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
