Hi,
On Fri, 25.03.2011 at 14:17:06 +, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
If we really want to meet the spec, we should be aiming for 64
characters, but that affects 98 packages and I'm not *too* bothered
about it since testing shows no issues thus far. I'm tempted to file:
*
On Sunday 10 April 2011 20:19:42 Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 25.03.2011 at 14:17:06 +, Steve McIntyre
st...@einval.com
wrote:
If we really want to meet the spec, we should be aiming for 64
characters, but that affects 98 packages and I'm not *too* bothered
about it since testing
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de Sun, April 3, 2011 5:17:06 PM
Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de writes:
On 2011-04-03, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
OTOH, do you really want to type
apt-get install package-with-policy-compliant-utterly-long-silly-name?
There's a point when
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 08:56:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
using CDs and DVDs to seed a
On 2011-04-03, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
OTOH, do you really want to type
apt-get install package-with-policy-compliant-utterly-long-silly-name?
There's a point when package name lengths become problematic, and that
isn't just true for ISO images.
That's why $DEITY invented tab
Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de writes:
On 2011-04-03, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
OTOH, do you really want to type
apt-get install package-with-policy-compliant-utterly-long-silly-name?
There's a point when package name lengths become problematic, and that
isn't just true for
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:16:12PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:56:22 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Right, that's certainly true for the lib.*-perl packages, and I
wouldn't know how we should rename them in a sane way.
In the worst case that I'm looking at, I'm a little
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:54:49AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I think so. The package with long names tend to follow a naming policy
that sort of imposes the long name... so if we put a too-short limit
then we're asking them to make an
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:54:49AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I think so. The package with long names tend to follow a naming policy
that sort of imposes the long name... so if we put a
Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org writes:
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.general Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
If I had to chose
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 08:56:14AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
using CDs and DVDs to seed a
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 03:18:12PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:56:14 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
We already have arbitrary limits on filename length (~200 bytes or so
on RockRidge), even before this. I'm just proposing to lower them for
a common use case. Do we
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I think so. The package with long names tend to follow a naming policy
that sort of imposes the long name... so if we put a too-short limit
then we're asking them to make an exception in the naming policy.
So what's a reasonable name length limit
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:56:22 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Right, that's certainly true for the lib.*-perl packages, and I
wouldn't know how we should rename them in a sane way.
In the worst case that I'm looking at, I'm a little surprised by the
names here on two fronts:
Joey Hess jo...@debian.org writes:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
If I had to chose between that working, and not needing to worry about
filename lengths, I'd choose the
Hi,
some technical facts about name lenght in Debian ISO 9660 images:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
What happens if you try to put too-long filenames on the CD with Joliet
enabled?
libisofs, which produces the Debian i386 and amd64 images, truncates
oversized Joliet names. Collisions get resolved by
Hi!
Am 28.03.2011 11:23, schrieb Thomas Schmitt:
Test reports from reading such an ISO image by a real Windows machine
would be interesting ... :)
E.g. with a file name of 100 characters:
xorriso -as mkisofs -o test.iso -J -joliet-long -graft-points \
Hi,
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
xorriso -as mkisofs -o test.iso -J -joliet-long -graft-points \
/012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
5678901234567890123456789=/some/file/on/disk
Didn't worked over here with an uptodate Windows XP. It
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, John H. Robinson, IV jaq...@debian.org
wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
That's not our problem, is it?
It is, if we are trying to be as compatible as possible.
Compatible with what? Bugs in other implementations?
What does
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.general Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
If I had to chose between that working, and not needing to worry about
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, John H. Robinson, IV jaq...@debian.org wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
That's not our problem, is it?
It is, if we are trying to be as compatible as possible.
Compatible with what?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:43 PM, John H. Robinson, IV jaq...@debian.org wrote:
Compatible with what? Bugs in other implementations?
What does that really gain us?
The ability for the discs to be read on as many systems as possible. I'm
not going to pretend to know what all someone else may
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
And how would users then get those files? If you have a kernel without
udf filesystem support then apt/aptitude/... would suddenly fail to find
some files. Same if udf isn't the default filesystem for cds.
That's what the Rock Ridge extensions are for.
--
see shy
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
If I had to chose between that working,
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:56:14 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
We already have arbitrary limits on filename length (~200 bytes or so
on RockRidge), even before this. I'm just proposing to lower them for
a common use case. Do we really care about supporting *very* long
names here?
I think so.
On Sat, 2011-03-26 at 15:18 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:56:14 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
We already have arbitrary limits on filename length (~200 bytes or so
on RockRidge), even before this. I'm just proposing to lower them for
a common use case. Do we
Am Freitag 25 März 2011, 21:59:31 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:48:15PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:09:54PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:27:57PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
The longest is:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:55 PM, John H. Robinson, IV jaq...@debian.org wrote:
That's not our problem, is it?
It is, if we are trying to be as compatible as possible.
Compatible with what? Bugs in other implementations?
What does that really gain us?
--
Olaf
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:32:27 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I think so. The package with long names tend to follow a naming policy
that sort of imposes the long name... so if we put a too-short limit
then we're asking them to make an exception in the naming policy.
Right, that's certainly
Hey folks,
I've noticed a problem recently in the archive when building CDs,
aggravated to a certain extent by the newer source formats. Some of
the filenames in the archive are getting *very* long, and this is
causing issues. As a matter of course, we build CDs with RockRidge and
Joliet support
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 02:17:06PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Hey folks,
I've noticed a problem recently in the archive when building CDs,
aggravated to a certain extent by the newer source formats. Some of
the filenames in the archive are getting *very* long, and this is
causing issues. As a
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 02:17:06PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Debian LibreOffice Maintainers debian-openoff...@lists.debian.org
openoffice.org
Dead. Any anything there is just transitional packages you need tor
squeeze-wheezy upgrades, so need to stay. Is libreoffice also affected?
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:50:32PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 02:17:06PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Debian LibreOffice Maintainers debian-openoff...@lists.debian.org
openoffice.org
Dead. Any anything there is just transitional packages you need tor
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
users. The problem is that Joliet has a limit for filename length (64
characters), and technically we're already past that length. From
genisoimage.1:
64 is quite low. Is there no way to use longer filenames that still
Steve McIntyre wrote:
I've noticed a problem recently in the archive when building CDs,
aggravated to a certain extent by the newer source formats. Some of
the filenames in the archive are getting *very* long, and this is
causing issues. As a matter of course, we build CDs with RockRidge and
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:27:57PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
The longest is:
libreoffice-presentation-minimizer_1.0.3+LibO3.3.1-1_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
at 71.
Good, then any bug against openoffice.org is not needed, as that obviously
will be + wontfix wheezy-ignore, because it simply
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
64 is quite low. Is there no way to use longer filenames that still
works on all required platforms?
To do that, we'll have to switch to a different filesystem. That's a
possibility (maybe UDF), but there's probably even
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:52:35AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
I've noticed a problem recently in the archive when building CDs,
aggravated to a certain extent by the newer source formats. Some of
the filenames in the archive are getting *very* long, and this is
causing
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 04:48:12PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
users. The problem is that Joliet has a limit for filename length (64
characters), and technically we're already past that length. From
genisoimage.1:
64
Steve McIntyre wrote:
There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
If I had to chose between that working, and not needing to worry about
filename lengths, I'd choose the latter.
Is it possible to provide Joliet
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:13:03PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
64 is quite low. Is there no way to use longer filenames that still
works on all required platforms?
To do that, we'll have to switch to a different
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
Why's that? Isn't UDF widely supported?
Implementations often widely differ in their limitations - see the
Wikipedia page for more details. The suggested way to make a safe UDF
DVD is often along the lines of use the
On 2011-03-25, Joey Hess jo...@debian.org wrote:
Is it possible to provide Joliet filenames for only a subset of files?
It is, yes. But not something I'd like to do if we can avoid it.
One approach then would be to omit joliet filenames for the few long
packages. This would not even impact
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
Why's that? Isn't UDF widely supported?
Implementations often widely differ in their limitations - see the
Wikipedia page for more details. The suggested way to make a safe UDF
DVD is often
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:09:54PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:27:57PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
The longest is:
libreoffice-presentation-minimizer_1.0.3+LibO3.3.1-1_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
at 71.
Good, then any bug against openoffice.org is not
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:48:15PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:09:54PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:27:57PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
The longest is:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
There are uses I've heard about, including (apparently quite common)
using CDs and DVDs to seed a mirror on a Windows server.
If I had to chose between that working, and not needing to worry about
filename lengths,
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com wrote:
Why's that? Isn't UDF widely supported?
Implementations often widely differ in their limitations - see the
Wikipedia page for more details. The suggested way to make
48 matches
Mail list logo
