From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:53:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:53:24 -0400 Received: from mail.muc.eurocyber.net ([195.143.108.5]:58597 "EHLO mail.muc.eurocyber.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 05:53:12 -0400 Message-ID: <3B04ED94.9F42C17D@TeraPort.de> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:38:28 +0200 From: "Martin.Knoblauch" Organization: TeraPort GmbH X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-ac11 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: ReiserFs: Cosmetic problem in linux/Documentation/Changes [2.4.x] In-Reply-To: <3B04E9E4.16ED592B@TeraPort.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, I submitted this a short while ago, only to realize later that the subject line was not very informative. Sorry. As a suggestion: maybe the reiser-tools should support the common -V/--version flag Martin "Martin.Knoblauch" wrote: > > Hi, > > apparently the method to find out the version of the reiserfs[progs] > mentioned in above file does not produce any result at all. > > # reiserfsck 2>&1|grep reiserfsprogs > > reports nothing. If I look at the output "manually", there does not > seem to be any version in there. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Martin Knoblauch | email: Martin.Knoblauch@TeraPort.de TeraPort GmbH | Phone: +49-89-510857-309 IT Services | Fax: +49-89-510857-111 http://www.teraport.de | Mobile: +49-170-4904759