On 14 Aug 2000, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> > That's also horrible.
>
> It might be horrible, but how else are you going to solve it? As
> Linus has said, NTFS is not POSIX compatible anyway, but it has to be
> supported somehow.
Solve it the way I have already explained. NT is POSIX compliant, and uses
this implementation...
> > BTW: What do you do if there's a real directory called ".fork"? Or a
> > file?
>
> Tough luck, on NTFS file systems the name ".fork" is reserved.
Says who? It's not your file system. You just want the drivers to break on
perfectly legal NTFS partitions?
> > You also still have the original problem of naming the forks!
> >
> > If I create "foo" and "bar", both with a fork called "splat", what tree do
> > I get? This one:
> >
> > foo
> > bar
> > .fork/foo:splat
> > .fork/bar:splat
>
> Almost, with / instead of : as the separator.
Oh dear. We're back to the stupid pseudo-magic-directory-thing shit again.
(snip vomit)
> > > That would work on ext2, NFS or any POSIX like filesystem.
> >
> > It might possibly work, but it would leave a mess on the keyboard. Don't
> > do it.
>
> It's how AppleShare has been done with Netatalk for a long time.
Making mistakes is normal. Repeating them should be avoided.
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:33 EST