On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 06:27:54 -0400, jayjwa wrote:




> http://ufs-linux.sourceforge.net/

(actual patch part of this post was cut off)

Got to love my ****ty ISP. Each time I attempt a post some time of patch
or shar file containing a patch to my newsserver, the connection is cut. I
repeated this little experiment 7 times and same thing each time. Someone
running a horrifically broken filter on news posting that disconnects when
it sees certain data? I don't know...no other way to explain this.

Apologies in advance of it spits them later as duplicate posts, but it
seems they went to /dev/null.

So, last try, try #8, tftp://atr2.ath.cx/ufs-tools-patchset-1.patch.shar



(and bet *this* post goes thru without error as the data part is now a URL)

jayjwa wrote:
>
> Got to love my ****ty ISP. Each time I attempt a post some time of patch
> or shar file containing a patch to my newsserver, the connection is cut.

That's because you attempted to post an attachment to a
UseNet group. UseNet has never accepted attachments.
Don't blame your ISP for a user training issue. Do ask your
ISP for their docs on the topic.

Since UFS format has been declared obsolete for Linux use
it doesn't surprise me that you have not found an easy path.
Sorry, but working with old filesystem formats is development
work that is not easy. Keep at it and you will eventually get
through.

UFS has been used in Solaris for many years. Consider
downloading a personal copy of the parts of Solaris sources
that are released and work with them as reference material.

Package: libufs2
Priority: optional
Section: libs
Installed-Size: 60
Maintainer: Guillem Jover
Architecture: i386
Source: ufsutils
Version: 0.0+2004.06.26-4
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-4)
Filename: pool/main/u/ufsutils/libufs2_0.0+2004.06.26-4_i386.deb
Size: 8766
MD5sum: 62df0acc78ebd3340ab19ecd63cb35d3
SHA1: d02610cc5ef6a2b8cb4e594c91caefc24e5ac069
SHA256: c4514aeafb631f0da43c08c481c9474989770150d74b58945e 3da75e96030df5
Description: UFS filesystem shared library
Shared library to manage the UFS filesystem, mostly used in BSD or derived
operating systems. This include FFS, UFS and UFS2.


Package: ufsutils
Priority: optional
Section: utils
Installed-Size: 400
Maintainer: Guillem Jover
Architecture: i386
Version: 0.0+2004.06.26-4
Provides: fsck-backend
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-4), libedit2 (>= 2.5.cvs.20010821-1), libncurses5 (>= 5.4-1), libufs2
Conflicts: hurd
Filename: pool/main/u/ufsutils/ufsutils_0.0+2004.06.26-4_i386.deb
Size: 148140
MD5sum: 42c4d0048596c75b559ef8c3e458e5c8
SHA1: 56089b2f47ad4306f9da8a4dd431782311add61c
SHA256: b994d1d7edcb1a82d876d43dd3d481cc012795e41f5af4a0cf a0ac27376e1652
Description: UFS filesystems utilities
Utilities to manage the UFS filesystem, mostly used in BSD or derived
operating systems. This include FFS, UFS and UFS2.

On 5 Jul, 23:26, Doug Freyburger wrote:

> That's because you attempted to post an attachment to a
> UseNet group. UseNet has never accepted attachments.
> Don't blame your ISP for a user training issue. Do ask your
> ISP for their docs on the topic.

You don't go look in alt.binaries much, do you?

Seriously, it's a group by group decision. Most such attachments are
sent out to the balkans of alt.binaries.

> Since UFS format has been declared obsolete for Linux use
> it doesn't surprise me that you have not found an easy path.
> Sorry, but working with old filesystem formats is development
> work that is not easy. Keep at it and you will eventually get
> through.

Well, yes.

> UFS has been used in Solaris for many years. Consider
> downloading a personal copy of the parts of Solaris sources
> that are released and work with them as reference material.

Jay? Why do you want to do this?

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 05:28:58 -0700, Nico wrote:

> On 5 Jul, 23:26, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> That's because you attempted to post an attachment to a
>> UseNet group. UseNet has never accepted attachments.
>> Don't blame your ISP for a user training issue. Do ask your
>> ISP for their docs on the topic.
>
> You don't go look in alt.binaries much, do you?

Actually, it wasn't an attachment, it was similar to:

(a paragraph or two of text about ufs stuff and a URL)

(start of the diff's)
diff blah blah
diff something something

- minus this
+ plus that
and so on and so forth...

Part of it actually came thru.

>> Since UFS format has been declared obsolete for Linux use
>> it doesn't surprise me that you have not found an easy path.
>> Sorry, but working with old filesystem formats is development
>> work that is not easy. Keep at it and you will eventually get
>> through.

It must still be around, it's here in this recent kernel:
/usr/src/linux-2.6.21.5/fs/ufs/ufs.ko


> Jay? Why do you want to do this?

Well, I was making a root disk that had all the file maintenance utilities
on it that I had. When I went to test 'mkufs', it failed run due to
linking funny. It wanted 'libufs/libufs.so', verbatum. When I went to
change that to 'libufs.so', I found it wouldn't compile again under gcc
4.2.0 and so tried to fix it, then thought no harm in putting out what I
did.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:24:49 -0500, John Hasler wrote:

> Package: libufs2
> Priority: optional
> Section: libs
> Installed-Size: 60
> Maintainer: Guillem Jover
> Architecture: i386
> Source: ufsutils


> The following utilities are provided:
> - mkfs.ufs
> - fsck.ufs
> - fsdb.ufs
> - dumpfs.ufs
> - growfs.ufs
> - tunefs.ufs
> - badsect.ufs
> - ffsinfo

Ah, the Debian one. I didn't find that in my search for some reason. p7zip
should get the files out the .deb., as I don't have a Debian package
system. Thanks for the info.

On 8 Jul, 00:39, jayjwa wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 05:28:58 -0700, Nico wrote:

> > Jay? Why do you want to do this?
>
> Well, I was making a root disk that had all the file maintenance utilities
> on it that I had. When I went to test 'mkufs', it failed run due to
> linking funny. It wanted 'libufs/libufs.so', verbatum. When I went to
> change that to 'libufs.so', I found it wouldn't compile again under gcc
> 4.2.0 and so tried to fix it, then thought no harm in putting out what I
> did.

Fair enough.