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
