Re: xfsprogs: minimum version with these commands

Bogdan
2010-09-01T15:59:08Z

On 30.08.2010 18:44, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Bogdan wrote:
>> Is everything really there? How do I get these?
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=xfs/cmds/xfsprogs.git
> http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=xfs/cmds/xfsdump.git
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/xfs-cmds/
>
> Most everything should be there.

Starting from version 3, as I can see. I couldn't go further in the past.

>>> Most of the things you ask about are SO OLD it will take some digging
>>> through renames and moves.
>>
>> I thought so. I'm surprised such things as added commands aren't in
>> the ChangeLog, unless they were present from the first version.
>>
>>> Do you really need to know if "xfs_check" was added in 1994, or 1995, for
>>> example? :)
>>
>> No. I need to know what was the first version of the xfsprogs package
>> that contained this program. The version number, not the year.
>
> well, equivalently, do you care if it was version 1.0.0 or 1.0.1, from the
> 1990's era.
>
> For everything you asked about, I think they've all been there since
> inception.

That would be good.

> I think picking a version from maybe 5 years ago and checking that the
> commands are all there would suffice; it would be -very- unlikely that
> anything older is still in use.

Hopefully. I got some versions like 2.0.3 and 2.7.11. Where do I get
older?

>>> This strikes me as a bit of an odd question; what is your motivation here?
>>
>> I'm writing a program that executes xfs_db and other processes,
>> passes commands to them and reads replies. Now I want to know what the
>> minimum required version is to be sure that these commands are
>> accepted. I know this might seem strange, but I'd like to know this in
>> more detail, so I can say "requires xfsprogs version X.Y.Z or newer"
>> instead of "requires xfsprogs" (which would imply that all versions
>> work, and this might not be the case). If it would be "1.0.0", great.
>> But I wanted to be sure.
>
> Ok, understood.
>
> I think the fastest route, since nothing you asked for is particularly
> "new" would be to just grab a sufficiently old version and double check
> that the commands are there. Easier than chasing through the repository,
> I think.

Surely. But where do I get such old versions?