On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Valentin Nechayev wrote:
> Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 03:14:33, strick (Dan Strick) wrote about "UFS file
> system problem in either stable or current":
> DS> There seems to be an inconsistency between release 4.9-RC and 5.1 ufs
> DS> support. If I fsck the same ufs (type 1 of course
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, 11:18+0200, Valentin Nechayev wrote:
> Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 03:14:33, strick (Dan Strick) wrote about "UFS file system
> problem in either stable or current":
>
> DS> There seems to be an inconsistency between release 4.9-RC and 5.1 ufs
> DS> support. If I fsck the same ufs
Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 03:14:33, strick (Dan Strick) wrote about "UFS file system
problem in either stable or current":
DS> There seems to be an inconsistency between release 4.9-RC and 5.1 ufs
DS> support. If I fsck the same ufs (type 1 of course) file system on
DS> both releases, each claims t
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 08:42 am, Dan Strick wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:23:20 -0500, Peter Schultz wrote:
> > Dan Strick wrote:
> > > There seems to be an inconsistency between release 4.9-RC and 5.1
> > > ufs support. If I fsck the same ufs (type 1 of course) file system
> > > on both rel
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:23:20 -0500, Peter Schultz wrote:
>
> Dan Strick wrote:
> > There seems to be an inconsistency between release 4.9-RC and 5.1 ufs
> > support. If I fsck the same ufs (type 1 of course) file system on
> > both releases, each claims that the other has left incorrect
> > summar
Dan Strick wrote:
There seems to be an inconsistency between release 4.9-RC and 5.1 ufs
support. If I fsck the same ufs (type 1 of course) file system on
both releases, each claims that the other has left incorrect
summary data in the superblock. Presumably only one can be correct.
I just don't k
