Re: CVS commit: src/sbin/fsck_ffs
In message: 87r5yv4rqn@snark.cb.piermont.com Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com writes: : : M. Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com writes: : What I didn't glean from the discussion is what, exactly, you were : going to do about it and what, exactly, you'd like to harmonize with : FreeBSD on. It may have been there, but I just missed it. : : Documentation. It would involve making all man pages refer consistently : to FFS, FFSv1, FFSv2, and not to mix in the references to UFS. Documentation is easy, and I'll be happy to bring over the changes. Output of programs and/or input via config file changes is harder... I wasn't sure which of these two classes you were asking... Warner
Re: CVS commit: src/sbin/fsck_ffs
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 04:31:34AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: have you tried to convince freebsd guys to use your preferred name? being different creates another layer of confusion. We had a short discussion about this during BSDCan. Kirk didn't mind and if it should be reasonable to get consistent. Joerg
Re: CVS commit: src/sbin/fsck_ffs
In message: 20090510220227.gd16...@britannica.bec.de Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de writes: : On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 04:31:34AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: : have you tried to convince freebsd guys to use your preferred name? : being different creates another layer of confusion. : : We had a short discussion about this during BSDCan. Kirk didn't mind and : if it should be reasonable to get consistent. I think that this sort of decision can't be made by just Kirk since FreeBSD has deployed ufs2 for several releases now. I've missed much of the discussion, can someone recap exactly what you'd like to see changed? That would be the starting point for any user-visisble changes to FreeBSD... Warner
Re: CVS commit: src/sbin/fsck_ffs
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 07:51:41PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: I've missed much of the discussion, can someone recap exactly what you'd like to see changed? That would be the starting point for any user-visisble changes to FreeBSD... There is currently a mixed naming convention when refering to FFS filesystems (v1 and v2). Sometimes, it is FFS, FFS2, UFS, UFS2 etc. The consensus in NetBSD was to consistently use FFS and FFSv2. UFS2 is bad, as it changes the underlaying inode format, but still has FFS on top. Joerg
Re: CVS commit: src/sbin/fsck_ffs
In message: 20090511015855.gd16...@britannica.bec.de Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de writes: : On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 07:51:41PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: : I've missed much of the discussion, can someone recap exactly what : you'd like to see changed? That would be the starting point for any : user-visisble changes to FreeBSD... : : There is currently a mixed naming convention when refering to FFS : filesystems (v1 and v2). Sometimes, it is FFS, FFS2, UFS, UFS2 etc. : The consensus in NetBSD was to consistently use FFS and FFSv2. : UFS2 is bad, as it changes the underlaying inode format, but still has : FFS on top. Right, I gleaned that from the discussion. What I didn't glean from the discussion is what, exactly, you were going to do about it and what, exactly, you'd like to harmonize with FreeBSD on. It may have been there, but I just missed it. Warner
Re: CVS commit: src/sbin/fsck_ffs
(or just use FFSv2 (UFS2) etc.) in some man pages and related docs. (and also add the UFS2 paper into the SEE ALSO section?) I see both points, and think this is an excellent way to address both of them. pgpV50T6scYJU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CVS commit: src/sbin/fsck_ffs
lu...@netbsd.org wrote: Modified Files: src/sbin/fsck_ffs: fsck_ffs.8 Log Message: Use FFSv2 instead of UFS2. There was a related comment around PR/38192: http://mail-index.NetBSD.org/source-changes/2008/03/09/msg003309.html do we really want to call it FFSv2? we call it UFS2 in various places, and it's the name the upstream (freebsd) uses. FFSv2 seems used only in NetBSD world (derived from lfsv2 or libsa?) --- Izumi Tsutsui
Re: CVS commit: src/sbin/fsck_ffs
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 08:52:40PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote: | lu...@netbsd.org wrote: | | Modified Files: |src/sbin/fsck_ffs: fsck_ffs.8 | | Log Message: | Use FFSv2 instead of UFS2. | | There was a related comment around PR/38192: | http://mail-index.NetBSD.org/source-changes/2008/03/09/msg003309.html | | do we really want to call it FFSv2? | we call it UFS2 in various places, and | it's the name the upstream (freebsd) uses. | | FFSv2 seems used only in NetBSD world (derived from lfsv2 or libsa?) I initiated a discussion related to the inconsistent use of FFS (and FFSv#) versus UFS (and UFS#) in late March: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2009/03/31/msg002003.html I think it is confusing to end users to use the terms FFS and UFS interchangebly in program output and documentation. The names of our tools have ffs in them (not ufs). We generally use FFS (instead of UFS) in various documentation. As for FreeBSD; I don't think that they're a paragon of consistency in their command names, command output, and documentation. They use ffs in command names, have an ffs(7) manual page, but inconsistently use UFS and FFS in their command documentation. cheers, Luke. pgpvcEa7Myums.pgp Description: PGP signature
