On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 04:57:23PM +1100, Luke Mewburn wrote:

 > I'm curious as to who finds the old behaviour so useful and/or
 > necessary that they can't first edit the disklabel to contain the

There are certain types of devices for which you might not want to use
a disklabel.

 > correct partition type and other information, or use newfs -F
 > (which ignores the disk label entry entirely).

Then I suggest you fix -F to not require -s to also be provided unless
the size of the device cannot be determined at run-time.

 > I received a reasonable amount of positive feedback about the addition
 > of that test (which prevents non 4.2BSD file systems from being newfs-ed
 > unless you use -F), and having been bitten myself by accidentally
 > newfs-ing the wrong partition because of a one character typo (and I'm
 > sure that I'm not the only one), I disagree strongly with your backing
 > out of that test.

Yah, and I suppose we should make "rm -i" the default, too?

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>