On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 07:40:56AM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote: | On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 04:57:23PM +1100, Luke Mewburn wrote: | | > I'm curious as to who finds the old behaviour so useful and/or | > necessary that they can't first edit the disklabel to contain the | | There are certain types of devices for which you might not want to use | a disklabel. | | > correct partition type and other information, or use newfs -F | > (which ignores the disk label entry entirely). | | Then I suggest you fix -F to not require -s to also be provided unless | the size of the device cannot be determined at run-time. I could just add another option (such as "-I" to `ignore partition type check') and only check the partition type if that option isn't set. (Changing -F to grok the size from the device is ugly; it means adding a bunch of disklabel groking magick to the -F code that doesn't need to be there otherwise.) | > I received a reasonable amount of positive feedback about the addition | > of that test (which prevents non 4.2BSD file systems from being newfs-ed | > unless you use -F), and having been bitten myself by accidentally | > newfs-ing the wrong partition because of a one character typo (and I'm | > sure that I'm not the only one), I disagree strongly with your backing | > out of that test. | | Yah, and I suppose we should make "rm -i" the default, too? Not really. rm -i protects single files (I don't use rm -i fwiw). This check prevents the inadvertant nuking of entire file systems. I think your analogy is drawing a long bow :-) Luke.