Package: dosfstools
Version: 3.0.20-1
Severity: wishlist
Seems that dosfstols and udev disagree upon how the "UUID"
(i.e. the volume-id) of a fat file system should be written.
Sample session:
# mkdosfs -F 16 -i 1234-abcd -n efi /dev/vda2
mkfs.fat 3.0.20 (12 Jun 2013)
Volume ID must be a hexadecimal number
Usage: mkfs.fat [-a][-A][-c][-C][-v][-I][-l bad-block-file][-b
backup-boot-sector]
[-m boot-msg-file][-n volume-name][-i volume-id]
[-s sectors-per-cluster][-S logical-sector-size][-f number-of-FATs]
[-h hidden-sectors][-F fat-size][-r root-dir-entries][-R
reserved-sectors]
/dev/name [blocks]
# mkdosfs -F 16 -i 1234abcd -n efi /dev/vda2
mkfs.fat 3.0.20 (12 Jun 2013)
# ls -l /dev/disk/by-uuid/1234*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jul 4 10:10 /dev/disk/by-uuid/1234-ABCD -> ../../vda2
# mount -U 1234-abcd /mnt
mount: no such partition found
# mount -U 1234-ABCD /mnt
# echo $?
0
Sorry to say, but this is confusing. The current implementations
require too much "magic" to make things work together. It would
be nice if the dosfstools and udev could find a common solution.
Many thanx in advance
Harri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
