Re: util-linux seems to have /sbin/fsck
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 11:46:57PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <20040111193033.GA17753@deprecation.cyrius.com>,
> Martin Michlmayr <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >* Goswin von Brederlow <email@example.com>
> >[2004-01-11 19:18]:
> >> > I think /sbin/fsck must be packed in not e2fsprogs but util-linux,
> >> >
> >> > How do you think about that? Is it bug?
> >> Sounds like a reasonable suggestion.
> >#111651: fsck: split out from e2fsprogs?
> e2fsprogs and e2fslibs together are ~ 1 MB. Isn't splitting out
> fsck from that just creating packages for the sake of creating
> packages ?
This is why I haven't bothered. /sbin/e2fsck is all of 120k, and
/sbin/mke2fs is 21k. If we separated out fsck, it would save a few
hundred kilobytes, but that's about it. Still, it might be worth
doing just for aesthetic reasons; I just haven't bothered because it
has never seemed to be very high priority to me.
Something that probabably *is* worth doing is to move
/etc/init.d/checkfs.sh and /etc/init.d/checkroot.sh from util-linux
into whatever package contains fsck. One of the things that I've been
wanting to do is use the logsave program (also part of e2fsprogs) to
capture the output of the fsck, and put it into a separate log file.
This makes it easier for it to be kept and archived separately from
the boot log, and it's also superior because it filters out the
progress bar from being logged, which can waste quite a bit of disk
space, and makes the log file less useful.
Miquel, would you have any objections to moving checkfs.sh and
checkroot.sh into either the e2fsprogs package or into a separable