Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > Bad example. Not _all_ filenames but temp. ones only which allows to run
> > FreeBSD binary in MSDOS FS with MSDOS files.
> The point is the same. Files created by FreeBSD binaries during the course
> of operation don't conform to an 8.3 monocase naming scheme (think of
> dotfiles for example). I don't believe there's such a thing as a lowest
> common denominator of file system naming conventions - either a filesystem
> can support UFS names (perhaps through a translation later) or it's not
> suitable for running FreeBSD from.
With this line of reasoning, why don't you go all the way and add
control characters and stuff? They are allowed by ufs, and shell even
grok them. In fact, commands such as ls even have flags to deal with
Kris, IT IS THE APPLICATION THAT DICTATE YOUR NEEDS. The reasoning above
would more likely get FreeBSD to be discarded than the FS. If the OS
won't bend to the users' need, it will get dumped, period.
As we position FreeBSD as a server system, the need to support foreign
filesystems WELL increases. FIOFO (with all due respect :).
> > mktemp() makes temp files in any directory including current one.
> Yes, but in practice it's not used that way since you can't write to most
> directories on the system except ~ and /tmp and relatives.
Tell that to vim. :-)
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
Hmmm - I have to go check this. My reality assumptions are shattered.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message