On Monday 27 November 2017 13:13:01 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 08:19:25PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> > > Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)
> >
> > Ok, I prepared patches for util-linux including
On Monday 27 November 2017 13:13:01 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 08:19:25PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> > > Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)
> >
> > Ok, I prepared patches for util-linux including
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:54:30PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2018 22:52:33 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 27 November 2017 13:13:01 Karel Zak wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 08:19:25PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:54:30PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2018 22:52:33 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 27 November 2017 13:13:01 Karel Zak wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 08:19:25PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak
On Wednesday 14 February 2018 22:52:33 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 27 November 2017 13:13:01 Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 08:19:25PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> > > > Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)
On Wednesday 14 February 2018 22:52:33 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 27 November 2017 13:13:01 Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 08:19:25PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> > > > Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)
On Monday 27 November 2017 13:13:01 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 08:19:25PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> > > Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)
> >
> > Ok, I prepared patches for util-linux including
On Monday 27 November 2017 13:13:01 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 08:19:25PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> > > Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)
> >
> > Ok, I prepared patches for util-linux including
On Thursday 30 November 2017 00:21:26 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 01:44:40PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > So from all tests and discussion I would propose new
On Thursday 30 November 2017 00:21:26 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 01:44:40PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > So from all tests and discussion I would propose new
On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> So from all tests and discussion I would propose new unification:
>
> 1. Read label only from the root directory. If label in root directory
>is missing then disk would be treated as without label. Label from
>boot sector would not
On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> So from all tests and discussion I would propose new unification:
>
> 1. Read label only from the root directory. If label in root directory
>is missing then disk would be treated as without label. Label from
>boot sector would not
On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 01:44:40PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > So from all tests and discussion I would propose new unification:
> > >
> > > 1. Read label only from the root
On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 01:44:40PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > So from all tests and discussion I would propose new unification:
> > >
> > > 1. Read label only from the root
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 08:19:25PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> > Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)
>
> Ok, I prepared patches for util-linux including LABEL_FATBOOT:
>
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 08:19:25PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> > Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)
>
> Ok, I prepared patches for util-linux including LABEL_FATBOOT:
>
On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)
Ok, I prepared patches for util-linux including LABEL_FATBOOT:
https://github.com/karelzak/util-linux/compare/master...pali:master
I have not created official pull request on github yet
On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> Go ahead and send patch :-) (also with LABEL_FATBOOT=)
Ok, I prepared patches for util-linux including LABEL_FATBOOT:
https://github.com/karelzak/util-linux/compare/master...pali:master
I have not created official pull request on github yet
On Wednesday 22 November 2017 12:03:52 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:52:03AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > I can prepare patches for blkid (util-linux), but I do not like idea to
> > have different algorithm how is read label in fatlabel and blkid. Both
> > tools are used by
On Wednesday 22 November 2017 12:03:52 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:52:03AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > I can prepare patches for blkid (util-linux), but I do not like idea to
> > have different algorithm how is read label in fatlabel and blkid. Both
> > tools are used by
2017 m. lapkričio 22 d., trečiadienis 11:03:52 GMT rašėte:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:52:03AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > I can prepare patches for blkid (util-linux), but I do not like idea to
> > have different algorithm how is read label in fatlabel and blkid. Both
> > tools are used by
2017 m. lapkričio 22 d., trečiadienis 11:03:52 GMT rašėte:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:52:03AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > I can prepare patches for blkid (util-linux), but I do not like idea to
> > have different algorithm how is read label in fatlabel and blkid. Both
> > tools are used by
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:52:03AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> I can prepare patches for blkid (util-linux), but I do not like idea to
> have different algorithm how is read label in fatlabel and blkid. Both
> tools are used by different GUI programs and it is a bad if one GUI
> program on linux
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:52:03AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> I can prepare patches for blkid (util-linux), but I do not like idea to
> have different algorithm how is read label in fatlabel and blkid. Both
> tools are used by different GUI programs and it is a bad if one GUI
> program on linux
On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 01:44:40PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > So from all tests and discussion I would propose new unification:
> > >
> > > 1. Read label only from the root
On Monday 20 November 2017 12:12:56 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 01:44:40PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > So from all tests and discussion I would propose new unification:
> > >
> > > 1. Read label only from the root
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 01:44:40PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > So from all tests and discussion I would propose new unification:
> >
> > 1. Read label only from the root directory. If label in root directory
> >is missing then disk
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 01:44:40PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > So from all tests and discussion I would propose new unification:
> >
> > 1. Read label only from the root directory. If label in root directory
> >is missing then disk
On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2017 14:06:08 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which
On Thursday 09 November 2017 22:21:31 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2017 14:06:08 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which
On Sunday 05 November 2017 14:06:08 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which read or write
> > > FAT32 label in filesystem images. The most
On Sunday 05 November 2017 14:06:08 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which read or write
> > > FAT32 label in filesystem images. The most
On Thursday 09 November 2017 11:21:25 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:01:45AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > You would have stored LABEL42 in boot sector and no label in root
> > > > directory. Windows handle this situation as there is no label.
> > >
> > > But why should we
On Thursday 09 November 2017 11:21:25 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:01:45AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > You would have stored LABEL42 in boot sector and no label in root
> > > > directory. Windows handle this situation as there is no label.
> > >
> > > But why should we
On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:01:45AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > You would have stored LABEL42 in boot sector and no label in root
> > > directory. Windows handle this situation as there is no label.
> >
> > But why should we *care*?
>
> FAT is Microsoft's filesystem and the only usage of it on
On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 10:01:45AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > You would have stored LABEL42 in boot sector and no label in root
> > > directory. Windows handle this situation as there is no label.
> >
> > But why should we *care*?
>
> FAT is Microsoft's filesystem and the only usage of it on
On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:59:09AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> What about exporting e.g. BOOT_LABEL field from libblkid for vfat disks?
> LABEL (which is shown to user, e.g. in GUI) would be that one from root
> directory (same which is used by label on MS-DOS and Windows) and
> BOOT_LABEL would be
On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:59:09AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> What about exporting e.g. BOOT_LABEL field from libblkid for vfat disks?
> LABEL (which is shown to user, e.g. in GUI) would be that one from root
> directory (same which is used by label on MS-DOS and Windows) and
> BOOT_LABEL would be
On Tuesday 07 November 2017 12:28:41 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 10:12:49PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Easy way how to achieve this situation:
> >
> > 1. use mkdosfs to format hard disk to FAT32 with label LABEL42
> >
> > 2. boot Windows 10 (or XP) and set label of that
On Tuesday 07 November 2017 12:28:41 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 10:12:49PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Easy way how to achieve this situation:
> >
> > 1. use mkdosfs to format hard disk to FAT32 with label LABEL42
> >
> > 2. boot Windows 10 (or XP) and set label of that
On Monday 06 November 2017 11:14:44 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:34:11PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 November 2017 16:25:54 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 05 November 2017
On Monday 06 November 2017 11:14:44 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:34:11PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 November 2017 16:25:54 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:56:53 Andy Shevchenko
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 10:12:49PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Easy way how to achieve this situation:
>
> 1. use mkdosfs to format hard disk to FAT32 with label LABEL42
>
> 2. boot Windows 10 (or XP) and set label of that FAT32 partition to
> empty (via Explorer GUI)
>
> 3. profit
>
> You
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 10:12:49PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Easy way how to achieve this situation:
>
> 1. use mkdosfs to format hard disk to FAT32 with label LABEL42
>
> 2. boot Windows 10 (or XP) and set label of that FAT32 partition to
> empty (via Explorer GUI)
>
> 3. profit
>
> You
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:34:11PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2017 16:25:54 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:56:53 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:34:11PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2017 16:25:54 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:56:53 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:35:42 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:07:45PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >
> > Current behavior of the last blkid and fatlabel tools is: Try to read
> > label from the root directory. If it does not exist, then fallback to
> > label stored in boot
On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:35:42 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:07:45PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >
> > Current behavior of the last blkid and fatlabel tools is: Try to read
> > label from the root directory. If it does not exist, then fallback to
> > label stored in boot
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:07:45PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
>
> Current behavior of the last blkid and fatlabel tools is: Try to read
> label from the root directory. If it does not exist, then fallback to
> label stored in boot sector. And when fatlabel is changing label it
> updates both
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:07:45PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
>
> Current behavior of the last blkid and fatlabel tools is: Try to read
> label from the root directory. If it does not exist, then fallback to
> label stored in boot sector. And when fatlabel is changing label it
> updates both
On Sunday 05 November 2017 16:51:49 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> In comparison lsblk might output partition label and FS label.
>
> Looking to blkid help
>
>-L, --label label
> Look up the device that uses this filesystem label;
> this is equal to --list-one --output device
>
On Sunday 05 November 2017 16:51:49 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> In comparison lsblk might output partition label and FS label.
>
> Looking to blkid help
>
>-L, --label label
> Look up the device that uses this filesystem label;
> this is equal to --list-one --output device
>
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2017 16:25:54 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> > On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:56:53 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Nov 5,
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2017 16:25:54 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> > On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:56:53 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> >> > On
On Sunday 05 November 2017 16:25:54 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:56:53 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 31
On Sunday 05 November 2017 16:25:54 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:56:53 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 31 October 2017 10:35:48 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:56:53 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 31 October 2017 10:35:48 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Oct 16,
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:56:53 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 31 October 2017 10:35:48 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Bombe wrote:
>> >> >
Hi,
Well, KDE Partition Manager uses dosfstools but I can always
release a new version once updated dosfstools is released.
Best,
Andrius
2017 m. lapkričio 5 d., sekmadienis 13:56:53 GMT Andy Shevchenko rašė:
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On
Hi,
Well, KDE Partition Manager uses dosfstools but I can always
release a new version once updated dosfstools is released.
Best,
Andrius
2017 m. lapkričio 5 d., sekmadienis 13:56:53 GMT Andy Shevchenko rašė:
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 October 2017
On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:56:53 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 October 2017 10:35:48 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Oct 12,
On Sunday 05 November 2017 15:56:53 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 October 2017 10:35:48 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Pali Rohár
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 October 2017 10:35:48 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Bombe wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> >> On Thursday 12
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 October 2017 10:35:48 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Bombe wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> >> On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:13:11 Karel Zak wrote:
>>
On Tuesday 31 October 2017 10:35:48 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >> On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:13:11 Karel Zak wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM
On Tuesday 31 October 2017 10:35:48 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >> On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:13:11 Karel Zak wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM +0200, Pali Rohár
On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which read or write
> > FAT32 label in filesystem images. The most common used are tools:
> > blkid (from util-linux project),
On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which read or write
> > FAT32 label in filesystem images. The most common used are tools:
> > blkid (from util-linux project),
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:13:11 Karel Zak wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> > > > The best for me is to keep blkid
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:13:11 Karel Zak wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> > > > The best for me is to keep blkid output backwardly
On Monday 16 October 2017 09:28:45 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 16 October 2017 03:12:43 Andreas Bombe wrote:
> > The other thing is completely ignoring the boot sector label, which I
> > could have as a mode enabled by command line switch or environmental
> > variable, or just outright make it
On Monday 16 October 2017 09:28:45 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 16 October 2017 03:12:43 Andreas Bombe wrote:
> > The other thing is completely ignoring the boot sector label, which I
> > could have as a mode enabled by command line switch or environmental
> > variable, or just outright make it
On Monday 16 October 2017 03:12:43 Andreas Bombe wrote:
> The other thing is completely ignoring the boot sector label, which I
> could have as a mode enabled by command line switch or environmental
> variable, or just outright make it the default. I'm not decided yet.
>
> Another problem is
On Monday 16 October 2017 03:12:43 Andreas Bombe wrote:
> The other thing is completely ignoring the boot sector label, which I
> could have as a mode enabled by command line switch or environmental
> variable, or just outright make it the default. I'm not decided yet.
>
> Another problem is
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:13:11 Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > The best for me is to keep blkid output backwardly compatible as much
> > > > as possible :-)
> > >
> > >
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:13:11 Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > The best for me is to keep blkid output backwardly compatible as much
> > > > as possible :-)
> > >
> > >
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:04:50AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 15 October 2017 08:59:01 Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > Based on results I would propose following unification:
> > >
> > ...
> > > 4. Prefer label from the root directory. If there is none entry (means
> > >there
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:04:50AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 15 October 2017 08:59:01 Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > Based on results I would propose following unification:
> > >
> > ...
> > > 4. Prefer label from the root directory. If there is none entry (means
> > >there
On Sunday 15 October 2017 08:59:01 Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Based on results I would propose following unification:
> >
> ...
> > 4. Prefer label from the root directory. If there is none entry (means
> >there is also no erased entry), then read label from root sector.
> >
> >-->
On Sunday 15 October 2017 08:59:01 Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Based on results I would propose following unification:
> >
> ...
> > 4. Prefer label from the root directory. If there is none entry (means
> >there is also no erased entry), then read label from root sector.
> >
> >-->
Hi!
> Based on results I would propose following unification:
>
...
> 4. Prefer label from the root directory. If there is none entry (means
>there is also no erased entry), then read label from root sector.
>
>--> Reason: Windows XP and mlabel ignores what is written in boot
>
Hi!
> Based on results I would propose following unification:
>
...
> 4. Prefer label from the root directory. If there is none entry (means
>there is also no erased entry), then read label from root sector.
>
>--> Reason: Windows XP and mlabel ignores what is written in boot
>
On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:13:11 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > The best for me is to keep blkid output backwardly compatible as much
> > > as possible :-)
> >
> > Backward compatibility is a good reason. But what with situation when
> >
On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:13:11 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > The best for me is to keep blkid output backwardly compatible as much
> > > as possible :-)
> >
> > Backward compatibility is a good reason. But what with situation when
> >
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > The best for me is to keep blkid output backwardly compatible as much
> > as possible :-)
>
> Backward compatibility is a good reason. But what with situation when
> interoperability with other systems (e.g. Windows) does not work as
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > The best for me is to keep blkid output backwardly compatible as much
> > as possible :-)
>
> Backward compatibility is a good reason. But what with situation when
> interoperability with other systems (e.g. Windows) does not work as
On Thursday 12 October 2017 10:56:58 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:44:26PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools
On Thursday 12 October 2017 10:56:58 Karel Zak wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:44:26PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:44:26PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which read or write
> > > FAT32 label in filesystem images. The
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:44:26PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which read or write
> > > FAT32 label in filesystem images. The
On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which read or write
> > FAT32 label in filesystem images. The most common used are tools:
> > blkid (from util-linux project),
On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which read or write
> > FAT32 label in filesystem images. The most common used are tools:
> > blkid (from util-linux project),
On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> Attached images in compressed form has only 600 kB and I think they can
> be useful for testing either blkid or dosfstools project, so I'm sending
> them here.
Gmail refused to send .tar.gz archive. So I'm sending tar.bz2. It is
just 9 kB
On Wednesday 11 October 2017 23:24:35 Pali Rohár wrote:
> Attached images in compressed form has only 600 kB and I think they can
> be useful for testing either blkid or dosfstools project, so I'm sending
> them here.
Gmail refused to send .tar.gz archive. So I'm sending tar.bz2. It is
just 9 kB
On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which read or write
> FAT32 label in filesystem images. The most common used are tools:
> blkid (from util-linux project), fatlabel (previously known as
> dosfslabel; from dosfstools project)
On Wednesday 04 October 2017 17:33:32 Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hi! There is a big inconsistency in Linux tools which read or write
> FAT32 label in filesystem images. The most common used are tools:
> blkid (from util-linux project), fatlabel (previously known as
> dosfslabel; from dosfstools project)
96 matches
Mail list logo