David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Any more ideas now? How can this "ATTR_ARCH" flag be reasonably used
> > here?
>
> The ATTR_ARCH flag doesn't get mapped to any standard Unix flag. Mapping it
> to the executable flag would be very strange.
>
I don't think so: this is exactly the approach taken from the SAMBA
people. There you have files on ext2 (usually) which have to behave like
Windows files (to put it very simply). They decided to map the archive,
hidden and system bits to the user, group and world execute bits
respectively (see the SAMBA directives map archive, map hidden, map
system). If this is possible to do when we have ext2 files and we want
them to "behave" like vfat, then it should be possible also when we have
vfat files (i.e. with "real" archive, hidden and system bits) and want
them to be mounted under some Linux directory (which SAMBA could then
use, read the mapped bits, find out the "real" bits and use the archive
bit to do correct incrementals on vfat). I think the mount command and
SAMBA should be consistent on this topic. The executable flags are
unused when you mount a vfat partition. They currently just get filled
according to the umask, but they are meaningless. Using the above method
they at least can be used for something (very) useful.
In one sentence: I miss the "map archive/hidden/system" options in the
vfat driver of the mount command in Linux.
--
Regards
Chris Karakas
Don´t waste your cpu time - crack rc5: http://www.distributed.net
