> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 08:52:40PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote: > | lu...@netbsd.org wrote: > | > | > Modified Files: > | > src/sbin/fsck_ffs: fsck_ffs.8 > | > > | > Log Message: > | > Use "FFSv2" instead of "UFS2". > | > | There was a related comment around PR/38192: > | http://mail-index.NetBSD.org/source-changes/2008/03/09/msg003309.html > | > | >> do we really want to call it FFSv2? > | >> we call it UFS2 in various places, and > | >> it's the name the upstream (freebsd) uses. > | > | "FFSv2" seems used only in NetBSD world (derived from lfsv2 or libsa?) > > I initiated a discussion related to the inconsistent use of > "FFS" (and "FFSv#") versus "UFS (and "UFS#") in late March: > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2009/03/31/msg002003.html > > I think it is confusing to end users to use the terms "FFS" > and "UFS" interchangebly in program output and documentation. > > The names of our tools have "ffs" in them (not "ufs"). > We generally use "FFS" (instead of "UFS") in various documentation. > > As for FreeBSD; I don't think that they're a paragon of consistency > in their command names, command output, and documentation. They > use "ffs" in command names, have an ffs(7) manual page, but > inconsistently use "UFS" and "FFS" in their command documentation. > > cheers, > Luke.
have you tried to convince freebsd guys to use your preferred name? being different creates another layer of confusion. YAMAMOTO Takashi
