Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] busybox fsck vs. fsck.ext4 ... experiences?

2017-03-31 Thread Adam Carter
Interesting that it includes fsck (any by the looks of https://busybox.net/BusyBox.html, also fsck.minix) but none of the other fsck's. The choice of mkfs is a different set, with mkfs.ext2, mkfs.minix, mkfs.reiser, mkfs.vfat included.

[gentoo-user] Re: [OT] busybox fsck vs. fsck.ext4 ... experiences?

2017-03-31 Thread Jonathan Callen
On 03/31/2017 09:50 AM, tu...@posteo.de wrote: On 03/31 10:59, Nils Freydank wrote: [...] The fsck.*'s are built in I agree: % bb ~ $ which fsck ~ $ fsck -v fsck (busybox 1.26.2, 2017-03-12 11:38:12 CET) -- GPG fingerprint: '00EF D31F 1B60 D5DB ADB8 31C1 C0EC E696 0E54 475B' Nils Freydank

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] busybox fsck vs. fsck.ext4 ... experiences?

2017-03-31 Thread tuxic
On 03/31 10:59, Nils Freydank wrote: > [...] > > The fsck.*'s are built in > > I agree: > > % bb > ~ $ which fsck > ~ $ fsck -v > fsck (busybox 1.26.2, 2017-03-12 11:38:12 CET) > > > -- > GPG fingerprint: '00EF D31F 1B60 D5DB ADB8 31C1 C0EC E696 0E54 475B' > Nils Freydank Ok, if its builtin

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] busybox fsck vs. fsck.ext4 ... experiences?

2017-03-31 Thread Nils Freydank
[...] > The fsck.*'s are built in I agree: % bb ~ $ which fsck ~ $ fsck -v fsck (busybox 1.26.2, 2017-03-12 11:38:12 CET) -- GPG fingerprint: '00EF D31F 1B60 D5DB ADB8 31C1 C0EC E696 0E54 475B' Nils Freydank signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.