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
[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 poi
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_journ
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 shou
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
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.
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).
-
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)?
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 st
> > 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
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.
consi
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
