Now I understand. Okay, this would have been a possible design choice
at the very beginning. In fact, because I was afraid of aliasing
issues, I added the check=strict mode, which corresponds to your
proposal. I decided to be more permissive in the default case, because
I envisioned that people would also use DOS partitions to store Linux
files and that paying attention to the (hopefully rare) aliasing
problems would be more acceptable then having to intervene at every
slight violation of the canonical naming rules. Just think of what a
pain it would be to extract a TAR file if 10% if your file names are
refused.
Nowadays, the situation has changed. Linux is no longer a small guest
on mainly DOS-based systems, we have UMSDOS, and we have VFAT. So
today, check=strict might be a reasonable default. Alas, we shouldn't
just break things that worked well and unchanged for years (see my
previous mail), so the current naming rules should not undergo drastic
changes, at least IMNSHO.
> > % dosemu_script foo.bar
>
> Doesn't that already fail on ext2 filesystems?
Ah yes, this was meant to show access to a file on a FAT FS via the
normal POSIX API and via DOSEMU. Sorry, that wasn't clear.
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, DI-LRC,EPFL,CH werner.almesberger@lrc.di.epfl.ch / /_IN_R_133__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/