On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 02:52:29PM +0200, Hauke Fath wrote:
> Am 24.06.2005 um 11:31 Uhr +0000 schrieb peter@netbsd.org:
> >State-Changed-Why:
> >I've changed the description for -a in newfs(8) to read:
> >"This sets the obsolete maxcontig parameter."
> >
> >Does that solve the problem for you?
> 
> Well, no.
> 
> It seems to me that you have misunderstood the issue, and you didn't 
> look at the code properly. Please back out the rev. 1.65 change of 
> sbin/newfs/newfs.8, and set the PR back to 'open'.
> 
> The reasoning:
> 
> (1) 'obsolete'? The newfs(8) '-a' option has code behind it. Remove 
> that code (and I'd argue you shouldn't), and _then_ remove the man 
> page entry. In that sequence, exactly, *not* the other way round. In 
> what way is an option to define the physical layout of a filesystem 
> obsolete, btw.?
> 

Yes obsolete, according to dbj@netbsd.org:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2005/06/23/0023.html

Note that I have no clue about UFS/FFS so that's why I asked on tech-kern
what to do. Note that I'm trying to fix things _for you_, since this PR
was marked serious and submitted ~9 months ago, so I wanted to do something
about it. But it seems that you can't appreciate this.. fine, whatever.

> (2) You did nothing to address my complaint that the tunefs(8) man 
> page is out of sync with both the code and references from the 
> newfs(8) man page.
> 
> (3) I see there is a one-liner for 'newfs -d' now, but it lacks an 
> explanation of "extent size", falling short of the rest of the 
> newfs(8) man page's clarity.
> 
> *As a sysadmin, I should not need to read newfs.c to understand what 
> the options to newfs do.*
> 

Note that this is a volunteer project, the way you're complaining is
not very motivating for, well, at least me.

HAND,
-- 
Peter Postma