From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:13283 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750809AbaBKJWZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 04:22:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:22:19 +0100 From: Karel Zak To: kerolasa@gmail.com Cc: "Dale R. Worley" , "Theodore Ts'o" , util-linux Subject: Re: Typo in mkfs man-page Message-ID: <20140211092219.GT8506@x2.net.home> References: <20140210173545.GK8506@x2.net.home> <20140210185741.GF4724@thunk.org> <201402102055.s1AKt0q7015336@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:05:32AM +0000, Sami Kerola wrote: > On 10 February 2014 20:55, Dale R. Worley wrote: > >> From: "Theodore Ts'o" > > > >> But /sbin/mkfs.xxx is generally run by system administrators, and IMHO > >> it's better to tell people to run the command "/sbin/mkfs.xxx" instead > >> of "/sbin/mkfs -t xxx". > > > > This makes sense to me. > > > > More exactly, mkfs is generally run "manually". > > > > And while having fsck "do what I mean" is largely safe, creating a > > file system is not the time that you want the user to be unclear on > > the exact implications of each option he has specified. > > Would it make sense to add banner 'you probably should not run this > utility, consider using file system specific mkfs' to mkfs? And mark it deprecated and one day kill it at all. Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com