Re: A possible problem with unstable mke2fs ?
firstname.lastname@example.org (shaul) writes:
> I have posted this on debian-user and got only one response that did not
> confirm it, though the responder did not actually tried it. This response is
> shown below, together with my original post to debian-user and my comment on
> the response I got. Yet I do believe I had a real problem that might interest
> I have managed to work around it by using mke2fs that was running from an old
> (Hamm ?) rescue disk.
> I can not say for sure but it seems to me that there is a difference between
> the current (unstable) mke2fs output and the old (Hamm) one. For example, the
> current version says the superblock backups are stored in 3 places while the
> old one uses much more. Yet I am using the unstable mount so it seems to me
> there might be a problem here.
There is a big difference and it has already be reported as a bug.
The current mke2fs creates (by default) filesystem with sparse
superblocks, which need a 2.2.x kernel to work. The mke2fs does notb
check the current running kernel neigther does it warn about this.
You can create the old stly fs by adding an option to mke2fs:
"mke2fs -s 0 -r 0" (should work)
More about this is in the manpage to mke2fs.
By the way, update your kernel why your at it. :)
May the Source be with you.