David Craven <da...@craven.ch> skribis: >> What’s wrong with using “fsck.extN” like we did before? > > fsck.extN is exactly the same binary as e2fsck when compiled > statically. This reduces the e2fsck/static package to a third of it's > previous size.
Oh I see. I fixed the crux of the problem (hard links) in commit 74d212911e6de68cdea0d2d88fcf63ca3a193846. Ludo’.
