How to create NTFS file system from FreeBSD?

[Chris Rees]

2009/4/11 Jan Henrik Sylvester <me at janh.de>:
> Chris Rees wrote:
>>
>> 2009/4/11 Jan Henrik Sylvester <me at janh.de>:
>>>
>>> Yuri wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I need to format NTFS partition to give HD to someone to write things
>>>
>>> mkntfs from sysutils/ntfsprogs should do it.
>>>
>>
>> Yuri had already written ONE LINE below your quote:
>>
>>> I tried to use mkntfs from ports/ntfsprogs but it didn't finish after an
>>> extremely long time, > 24hrs.
>
> Yes, sorry, I totally failed to make my point, since I scrapped that line
> and forgot about it writing the mail. (The important part was in the
> parenthesis you removed.)
>
> My point is that I had problems with ntfsresize from ntfsprogs-2.0.0 not
> working, while ntfsresize from ntfsprogs-1.13.1 was doing just fine. (I hit
> that twice -- on different computers.)
>
> Thus, I would suggest to try mkntfs from ntfsprogs-1.13.1, if mkntfs from
> ntfsprogs-2.0.0 fails.
>
> If the older mkntfs works, it would be another reason to revive the old
> port.
>
> ntfsprogs-2.0.0 was criticized, for example in the thread ending with this
> posting:
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-May/msg02306.html
>
> A developer from ntfs-3g that formerly worked on ntfsprogs recommends to use
> the older version: http://www.ntfs-3g.org/support.html#ntfsprogs
>
> I do not really know who is right, but ntfs-3g is actively developed while
> ntfsprogs is not, other people seem to trust ntfs-3g more than the newer
> version of ntfsprogs, and the arguments of the ntfs-3g developer sound
> reasonable.
>
> I wrote about it last year (before I actually hit problems):
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2008-August/050157.html
>
> The reply was that there are no new problems known with the 2.0.0 version:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2008-August/050406.html
>
> I would like to have ntfsprogs-1.13.1 back -- as ports/ntfsprogs1 or by
> reverting ports/ntfsprogs. Thus, Yuri, please try and report back.
>
> Cheers,
> Jan Henrik
>

Hah, sorry for the vicious reply from me. Don't take it personally, I
just snapped this time at reading what looked like a dupe >< I promise
I'll lay off the coffee for a bit.

Chris

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?