From: James Henrickson (ujlh@pool.info.sunyit.edu)
Date: 07/31/92


From: ujlh@pool.info.sunyit.edu (James Henrickson)
Subject: Re: Installation
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:54:29 GMT

In article <3yNooB2w164w@cellar.org> sailor@cellar.org (Rick Emerson) writes:
>cmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Chris Bugosh) writes:
>
>Do mkfs -c [/dev/hdxx] [size] and the -c will check the partition. At the
>end it writes .badblocks. The mcc-interim installation removes this file
>(or did previously). Try the mcc-interim version on sc.tamu.edu which
>doesn't do this.
>
>Owen: has this "feature" been removed?
>

I'm recompiling all of my old programs to use the same shared libs, and
downloaded the mcc-interim file misc.tar.Z. I saved the old binaries
before compiling and installing the new ones. I tested what I could, and
then rebooted. fsck (the one I just compiled) reported a lot of errors,
and I then ran fsck with the "-a" option to fix the problems. I gained
some much-needed disk space, but I think it's weird that the old fsck
never detected these problems.

I am running Linux 0.96c-pl2 and gcc 2.2.2 on a 386DX-33 with an IDE drive
and the same old minix file systems that I've had since April.

I'm only concerned because I don't want a broken fsck to trash my files.
Since one of the fsck's detected a problem and the other one didn't, which
one is broken?

-- 
Jim H.
*
* James L. Henrickson                                 ujlh@sunyit.edu
* "Yet another Jim in the Linux world."  :-)