At 2004-08-13T09:47:00+1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:37, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> > Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> > ># mkfs.ext3 [-c[c]] /dev/hdc1
> > I think mke2fs -j may be more appropriate?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ # ls -l /sbin/mkfs.ext3
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 Jul 25 17:43 /sbin/mkfs.ext3 -> mke2fs
> i.e. It matters not one jot!
It can matter. mke2fs behaves differently depending on the name of the
binary it is run as. Therefore:
# mke2fs /dev/hda1
...is not the same as...
# mkfs.ext3 /dev/hda1
...despite the fact that they are the same code. The first will create
an ext2 filesystem, and the second will create and ext3 filesystem (with
journal file).
Referring back to Steve's question, 'mke2fs -j /dev/hda1' will be
equivalent to 'mkfs.ext3 /dev/hda1'.
This type of behaviour is quite common among UNIX utilities. Another
example is bash, which will try and emulate a strict POSIX (bourne) sh
if run as /bin/sh.
Cheers,
-mjg
--
Matthew Gregan |/
/| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
