xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Things todo before we announce

To: nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Things todo before we announce
From: cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:29:47 -0600
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: In your message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:05:54 -0500" <10003301105.ZM7400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200003291619.KAA22984@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mostek@xxxxxxx> <10003300954.ZM7142@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <14562.42090.314696.82332B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <10003301105.ZM7400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Wanderlust/1.0.3 (Notorious) tm/7.108 XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon)
Ohh one other thing... do we have a version/revision 
output for mkfs that would be able identify if 
somebody is running the wrong version of mkfs.xfs?


OAt Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:05:54 -0500,
Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mar 30, 10:50am, cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Things todo before we announce
> > At Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:54:52 -0500,
> > Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > just a small thing, but it could become a headache later - is
> > > anyone violently opposed to this change...?
> > Not really... but I think a better idea would be
> > to have /usr/xfs/ put all of our binaries in there,
> > with links in /sbin.
> > 
> 
> well, mkfs is a bit special - /usr might be a separate filesystem
> and might not be mounted at the time mkfs is needed.  perhaps the
> same is true for the other xfs tools too, i'm not sure.
> 
> could implement your approach going the other way though (i.e.
> having links from /usr/xfs/* to the real binary in /sbin, but
> i'm not sure what that buys us...?  do the different distributions
> do different things here?  what does the lfs say on this?)
> 
> i'll go ahead and make the change (/sbin/mkfs_xfs now becomes
> /sbin/mkfs.xfs, so that ``mkfs -t xfs'' works).
> 
> cheers.
> 
> -- 
> Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>