Your message dated Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:02:32 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line e2fsprogs: clean fsck should say when a check will next be
forced
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: e2fsprogs
Version: 1.37-2sarge1
Severity: wishlist
It would be very useful to for-instance laptop users if fsck said what
the force check date/mount count is when it skips a clean filesystem.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12.2-xfs-k7-smp
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Versions of packages e2fsprogs depends on:
ii e2fslibs 1.37-2sarge1 ext2 filesystem libraries
ii libblkid1 1.37-2sarge1 block device id library
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge3 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libcomerr2 1.37-2sarge1 common error description library
ii libss2 1.37-2sarge1 command-line interface parsing lib
ii libuuid1 1.37-2sarge1 universally unique id library
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tags 381929 +wontfix
thanks
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:18:53PM +0100, Brian Brunswick wrote:
> Package: e2fsprogs
> Version: 1.37-2sarge1
> Severity: wishlist
>
> It would be very useful to for-instance laptop users if fsck said what
> the force check date/mount count is when it skips a clean filesystem.
Actually e2fsck already prints a warning when it skips a clean
filesystem and it is coming close to when a check will be needed. In
addition, checks will be deferred if the laptop is running on battery.
Printing the mount count every single time would add a lot of extra
noise to the boot sequence, and I think we have is sufficient for
laptop users (being one myself :-).
- Ted
--- End Message ---
