From: "Kay Sievers" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Move fsck from e2fsprogs to util-linux-ng Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:37:43 +0100 Message-ID: <3ae72650802061637t2185aaddt8a921c2fb3e8c097@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080206113426.7833.59505.stgit@sor.suse.de> <20080206125651.GD558@petra.dvoda.cz> <20080206140559.GJ27119@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Karel Zak" , "Matthias Koenig" , util-linux-ng-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-ext4-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Theodore Tso" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080206140559.GJ27119-3s7WtUTddSA@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: util-linux-ng-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Feb 6, 2008 3:05 PM, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 01:56:51PM +0100, Karel Zak wrote: > > It would be nice to add a note > > > > "fsck is deprecated in favor of fsck from util-linux-ng" > > > > to RELEASE-NOTES in e2fsprogs. > > I don't want to deprecate fsck quite yet from e2fsprogs, because there > are some ext4 issues with fsck (or more accurately, fsck's use of > vol_id instead of blkid), where it is more convenient if at least for > distros that are being aggressive with ext4 testing, if we don't try > to move fsck just now. Care to explain what ext4 development has to do with the generic fsck program? I don''t see any convincing reason not to move that now. Kay