[2019-03-13 18:20] Thorsten Glaser
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I am totally confused. Mind to make a patch?
>
> Eh, just donât drop support, and at best document that
> people should use the new tune2fs option for ext[234].
>
> No sense in making a patch, weâve
> And, I can't see standalone tune2fs even in unstable:
>
> $ apt-file find /bin/tune2fs
> android-sdk: /usr/lib/android-sdk/tools/bin/tune2fs
/sbin/tune2fs is shipped by e2fsprogs.
--
Pierre Ynard
[2019-03-11 19:27] Thorsten Glaser
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > So, you propose that we:
> > * drop all checks for /forcecheck
>
> No!
>
> > * document this fact in NEWS file
> > * write documentation, that e[2-4]fs users should use tune2fs tool
> >instead
>
> Yes.
So
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> Sorry, I am totally confused. Mind to make a patch?
Eh, just don’t drop support, and at best document that
people should use the new tune2fs option for ext[234].
No sense in making a patch, we’ve frozen.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
«MyISAM tables -will- get
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> So, you propose that we:
> * drop all checks for /forcecheck
No!
> * document this fact in NEWS file
> * write documentation, that e[2-4]fs users should use tune2fs tool
>instead
Yes.
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-
[2019-03-09 21:57] Thorsten Glaser
> > But I really want to have some transition plan to get rid of
> > /forcecheck, something like:
>
> … you might like that tune2fs can now (1.45.0-1, not yet in
> buster, officially not likely to make it but we can hope) set
> a flag force_fsck that next boot’
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Pierre Ynard wrote:
> /fastboot and /forcefsck are created by `shutdown -f` and `shutdown -F`
Oh, I didn’t know that, I just sudo touch them as used to on Unix.
> the shutdown binary, it could create /forcefsck or /run/forcefsck, which
/run is a tmpfs.
> would then be check
> > As you convincingly remarked below, we may want honor `test -f /forcecheck'
> > for every filesystem, whose `fsck' supports `-f' option. As far as I
> > follow the thread, it is:
> >
> > ext2 ext3 ext4 reiserfs
>
> Interesting that acceptance of that parameter is so low.
fsck.minix support
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> As you convincingly remarked below, we may want honor `test -f /forcecheck'
> for every filesystem, whose `fsck' supports `-f' option. As far as I
> follow the thread, it is:
>
> ext2 ext3 ext4 reiserfs
Interesting that acceptance of that paramete
[2019-03-07 15:15] Pierre Ynard
> > Sounds reasonable. Will you make patch?
>
> What does ext* expand to, what's the list of ext filesystem types for
> which we want to honor forcefsck? ext2, ext3 and ext4?
As you convincingly remarked below, we may want honor `test -f /forcecheck'
for every file
> Sounds reasonable. Will you make patch?
What does ext* expand to, what's the list of ext filesystem types for
which we want to honor forcefsck? ext2, ext3 and ext4?
> What is relations of reiserfs and /forcecheck convention on timeline?
> We want to deprecate /forcecheck, and making it respect
[2019-03-05 02:50] Pierre Ynard
> reopen 686895
> thanks
>
> /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh also checks forcefsck to pass -f to fsck,
> so it needs to be fixed too. It won't be as simple as checkroot.sh
> because fsck -A can apply to any number of filesystems of any type and
> checkfs.sh doesn't track s
reopen 686895
thanks
/etc/init.d/checkfs.sh also checks forcefsck to pass -f to fsck,
so it needs to be fixed too. It won't be as simple as checkroot.sh
because fsck -A can apply to any number of filesystems of any type and
checkfs.sh doesn't track specifics when calling it.
Perhaps the simplest
Hi Dmitry,
Dmitry Bogatov writes:
> control: tags -1 +patch
>
> [2014-11-24 22:30] Petter Reinholdtsen
>> Given that -f is force only for ext*, I suspect a more sensible
>> approach is to only enable forcefsck for ext*, not disable it for
>> btrfs.
>
> Like this?
>
> diff --git a/debian/src/ini
control: tags -1 +patch
[2014-11-24 22:30] Petter Reinholdtsen
> Given that -f is force only for ext*, I suspect a more sensible
> approach is to only enable forcefsck for ext*, not disable it for
> btrfs.
Like this?
diff --git a/debian/src/initscripts/etc/init.d/checkroot.sh
b/debian/src/in
Control: tags -1 - patch
Given that -f is force only for ext*, I suspect a more sensible approach
is to only enable forcefsck for ext*, not disable it for btrfs.
--
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsub
tag 686895 + patch
thanks
Hi,
I ran into the very same bug. It seems to be a more conceptual problem than
btrfs-related, but for making btrfsck work, I added this patch: >
--- checkroot.sh2014-02-16 23:34:17.349214647 +
+++ /etc/init.d/checkroot.sh2014-02-16 23:42:03.1937
retitle 686895 initscripts: /forcefsck: fsck -f undefined (e2fsck-ism)
tag 686895 + confirmed
thanks
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012, Simrun Basuita wrote:
> The manpage for fsck(9) makes no mention of a '-f' option. So perhaps
> checkroot.sh shouldn't call it with that argument.
You're correct.
It really l
reassign 686895 initscripts
thanks
The manpage fsck(8) makes no mention of a '-f' option. So perhaps
checkroot.sh shouldn't call it with that argument.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian
reassign 686895 btrfs-tools
thanks
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012, Simrun Basuita wrote:
> # cat /var/log/fsck/checkroot
> Log of fsck -C -f -a -t btrfs /run/rootdev
> Fri Sep 7 01:34:14 2012
>
> fsck from util-linux 2.20.1
> fsck.btrfs: invalid option -- 'f'
> usage: btrfsck dev
> Btrfs Btrfs v0.19
> fsck
Subject: initscripts: fsck called with invalid option '-f' if /forcefsck touched
Package: initscripts
Version: 2.88dsf-32
Severity: normal
# touch /forcefsck
REBOOT
# cat /var/log/fsck/checkroot
Log of fsck -C -f -a -t btrfs /run/rootdev
Fri Sep 7 01:34:14 2012
fsck from util-linux 2
21 matches
Mail list logo
