Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Rob Bogus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As someone who does not use Linux, I would say it is not the user's
fault. When that bit is set, it means the first extent is Macintosh
resource fork data. That bit was put into the standard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) quoted and then wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The ISO 9660 bit specifies that the very first extent is the
resource fork. The Linux option makes that first extent separately
visible. What effect does not Linux option have on the _other_
extents that also
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 06:46:50AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The implementation of associated files is exactly that of
subsequent extents (aside from ordering). My question was
intended to read What effect does that Linux option have,
with regard to handling multiple extents. Is there
From: Rob Bogus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As someone who does not use Linux, I would say it is not the user's
fault. When that bit is set, it means the first extent is Macintosh
resource fork data. That bit was put into the standard specifically
for that purpose. Linux should make it _extremely_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is unsafe. In fact, I did read all of the mount and mkisofs man
pages, and still made this stupid choice, perhaps it is not
unreasonable to say that the docs *are* unclear.
I did submit a bug report; the man page should mention this in
the future...
Not a thing that the
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 02:52:50PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I did submit a bug report; the man page should mention this
in the future...
Not a thing that the mkisofs man page should mention, is it
just not related to mkisofs. If ever, it is related to the way
Apple implemented it
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 11:40:59PM -0400, Rob Bogus wrote:
The user deliberately selected an option to make those forks
visible. Linux doesn't (deliberately) make things dificult,
it just makes the default safe in most cases, and allows
you to make a choice. If you ask to see the fork you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ambrose Li) quoted and then wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 11:40:59PM -0400, Rob Bogus wrote:
The user deliberately selected an option to make those forks
visible. Linux doesn't (deliberately) make things dificult,
it just makes the default safe in most cases, and allows
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As someone who does not use Linux, I would say it is not the user's
fault. When that bit is set, it means the first extent is Macintosh
resource fork data. That bit was put into the standard specifically
for that purpose. Linux should make it _extremely_ difficult to
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 03:44:35PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
mkisofs has passed the compliance test for Picture CDs from Kodak.
If you have problems without using HFS, they are definitely a result
of a Linux bug.
the corruption does not happen without using HFS unless I also use
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 23 18:16:17 2003
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 03:44:35PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
mkisofs has passed the compliance test for Picture CDs from Kodak.
If you have problems without using HFS, they are definitely a result
of a Linux bug.
the corruption does not
11 matches
Mail list logo
