On Thu, Mar 11, 1999 at 11:44:47AM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:44:43 -0800 (PST) 
>  Konrad Schroder <perseant@hhhh.org> wrote:
> 
>  > It counds good to me; my only concern would be that the fact that
>  > newfs_ffs is currently called `newfs' didn't cause any problems; since
>  > there are a lot more of them than options to mount(8).  Does the new
>  > newfs just pass on all its options besides fs-type to newfs_xxx, or do the
>  > options to newfs_ffs no longer directly work with newfs? 
> 
> newfs should just be a link to newfs_ffs... and newfs_xxx for all other
> xxx should just be invoked manualls.

Wouldn't it be preferrable to be consistent?

Do you really want a set of filesystem admin programs that accept a
filesystem type and then, like, one program that doesn't?

mount -t lfs blah
fsck -t lfs blah

but

newfs_lfs blah

?

You could even have newfs default to ffs.

Side note: where do programs like tunefs go? Should tunefs_ffs exist
or is that silly?

Has anyone thought about {dump,restore}_{ffs,lfs,etc} and so on?
-- 
Kevin P. Neal                                http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/

"You know, I think I can hear the machine screaming from here...  \
'help me! hellpp meeee!'"  - Heather Flanagan, 14:52:23 Wed Jun 10 1998