Jason McIntyre <j...@kerhand.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:35:35PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why
> > scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case.
> > 
> > ok?
> > 
> 
> hi.
> 
> i'm not sure if it's a bug, but it sure seems relevant. i would be
> tempted to be much more upfront about this (DESCRIPTION), way before you
> start tearing hair out...
> 
> like just say upfront, scan_ffs does not support ffs2 filesystems.

true.  it should be stated in a formal way.

"It is not perfect"

Yuck...

"one butt"?

This is below our standard.


> > --- scan_ffs.8.~1.16.~      Mon Mar 24 00:28:46 2008
> > +++ scan_ffs.8      Fri Feb  8 21:31:10 2019
> > @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ you out of a jam when they happen.
> >  .Sh SEE ALSO
> >  .Xr disklabel 8
> >  .Sh BUGS
> > -It is not perfect, and could do a lot more things with date/time 
> > information
> > +It is not perfect, does not support FFS2 filesystems,
> > +and could do a lot more things with date/time information
> >  in the superblocks it finds, but this program has saved more than one butt,
> >  more than once.
> > 
> > -- 
> > jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF  DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
> > 
> 

Reply via email to