"Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, a question and a comment:
>
> question: can hald (or whatever it uses) distinguish between hybrid
> filesystems (sharing some or all files and file data blocks but having
> different
> metadata) and distinct filesystems? Seems to me that all _distinct_
> filesystems
> should be mounted, but ideally just the _preferred_ one of the hybrid
> filesystems should be mounted.
You could try to find all filesystems on the medium that you know.....
> comment: The problem is how to determine "preferred"; that arguably
> relates to the target audience(s) and system(s) (and how they would handle the
> media) more than anything else, so I doubt there's a simple answer at
> this time.
>
> For some hybrids, there may be a "preferred" filesystem type; but for many,
> different types might be appropriate to different OSs (i.e. a
> RockRidge+Joliet+HFS might be appropriate for RockRidge on Unix/Linux,
> Joliet on Windows, and HFS on MacOS), although there might be exceptions.
I would guess that HFS will go away very soon.
I am planning to remove the related support from mkisofs soon as HFS is not
large file aware. There never has been HFS support on Solaris.
> It would at least be nice if Linux and Solaris (and maybe some of the *BSDs)
> agreed on how to handle such situations more or less consistently.
The simplest method to achive this is to deliver code.
Otherwise, you are just a follower of the Linux community.
> If a convention was developed for a hints file name and contents that
> described which fs to prefer under what conditions (and was visible under
> a consistent name in all the variants of a hybrid), that would allow for
> media that contained it, some clear indication of the media author's intent.
> But I don't know that anything like that exists, and it wouldn't help existing
> media or platforms not supporting it.
This is not possible in the filesystem meta data and thus you could do it only
in a file inside the FS.
> As for writable media: first, for _any_ hybrid filesystem, I think I'd favor
> mounting it read-only, even if one only mounts udfs, and even if the
> media is writable. That's because I think that determining how (and if)
> it was possible to write to the filesystem without invalidating the other
> hybrids might get unreasonably complicated; and I think it's better to
> default to doing something safe rather than something maximally enablling.
> If someone wants to do something trickier, they can always stop hald and
> mount by hand. Although IMO it would be nice if one could either
> communicate to hald that it should give up interest in/reclaim interest in
> a specific device, or that until the next media change on a particular device,
> it should alter its default behavior. That would allow either (simpler)
> taking manual control of a single device without stopping hald, or
> (trickier) having it undo whatever it did for a particular media and then
> redo it with altered behavior as specified. With some work, that could
> be reasonably safely and easily controlled by the end user (as long as they
> couldn't override nodev/nosuid).
ISO-9660(alone or with Rock Ridge) as well as Joliet is always read only.
Question: does HAL mount UDF read/write?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
