I'll explain what I tried to reflect in the list (because FAT32 was not popular time ago).
My point has been: FAT32 support is left as post-1.0. The fact that KERNEL, FDISK and other components already support FAT32 is an extra plus, but maybe we don't need to mark "FAT32" as one of the milestones for FD1.0 precisely because NOT ALL the utilities already support FAT32.
Of course, this all is changeable: we can set that support for FAT32 be requested for ALL the components (including ALL disk utilities, UNDELETE, etc). How does people feel about it?
Respect to the reference to DOSFSCK, I don't know well how to do it, so do you people prefer that
(a) DOSFSCK be added to the list as a base utility? In my understanding, this decission corresponds to Jim Hall. Notice that there is no tool in MS-DOS called DOSFSCK
(b) simply make a reference as with HIMEM/FDXMS286? (although FAT32 support is not "required" for 1.0 in the present situation, this may be technically a bit rare to be noticed there)
I'll opt for (b), unless the contrary is decided.
Notice that this does not solve the problem for other utilities (UNDELETE, DEFRAG?,...) that may not support this.
Aitor
Alain escribió:
Hi,
I found this: chkdsk Ready 2003-10-6
I don't agree. If we have a fat32 kernel, and chkdsk is only fat16 we cannot use it :( There could be a reference to dosfsck, stating not compatible or something.
Alain
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
