re: CVS commit: src/sbin/newfs

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>]

   Log Message:
   Under no circumstances try to zap an existing superblock at sector 0.
   There's no reasonable situation where there will be one there, except if the
   disk had data on it previously for some reason.  It's significantly more
   likely (read "the world until UFS2 was merged") that sector 0(..15)
   contains really important stuff like boot blocks and disk labels.
   
   Once again, I ask, why wasn't UFS2 implemented as a separate file
   system a la lfs & ext2fs ?
   It could have shared a chunk of the kernel code (just like those),
   and had different userland tools and a different fs_type.


is there any reason we can't fix this now?  2.0 hasn't come out.
i don't see wny reason we can't get it right now and have ufs2
as a separate file system type.  it's already shown that having
them "merged" hurts...


.mrg.