That's what the patch does.  I'm still at a loss as to why
it was called an "egregious hack"; the commenting party
has not returned my e-mail (yet).

And if you do (you know who you are), please cc:
greywolf@starwolf.com as otherwise I won't see your
message until Monday.
--*greywolf; /* Schwab Institutional TEchnology [SITE] */
----
WARNING: Replies to this message are subject to archival and review by
the
Charles Schwab & Co. Mail Archival And Retrieval System.  Keep this in
mind when
replying to this message.

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise noted, the opinions contained herein do
*NOT*
reflect the opinions or policies of Charles Schwab & Co.

> ----------
> From: 	Paul Goyette[SMTP:paul@whooppee.com]
> Sent: 	Friday, October 10, 1997 2:40 PM
> To: 	Scott Reynolds
> Cc: 	James.Graham@Schwab.COM; current-users@NetBSD.ORG
> Subject: 	Re: newfs overwrites non-UNIX filesystems
> 
> Well, we could always implement some sort of flag (maybe -F for
> Force?) to
> bypass the new checks...
> 
> On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Scott Reynolds wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 1997 James.Graham@Schwab.COM wrote:
> > 
> > > Does anyone else here feel as though a patch to newfs prevent
> > > accidental overwriting of a non-UNIX-type filesystem would
> > > be worthwhile?
> > 
> > Well, one adverse affect would be that I could no longer disklabel a
> ccd
> > that wasn't partitioned.  That would be bad. :-/
> > 
> > --scott
> > 
> > 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> | Paul Goyette       | PGP Public Key fingerprint:  | E-mail
> addresses:     |
> | Network Consultant |     0E 40 D2 FC 2A 13 74 A0  |
> paul@whooppee.com    |
> | and kernel hacker  |     E4 69 D5 BE 65 E4 56 C6  |
> paul_goyette@ins.com |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>