>> Basically, as I understand it, the following is true:
>>
>> 1. UMSDOS assumes that the underlying file system is the MSDOS
>> FAT file system, with its 8.3 limit on filenames.
>>
>> 2. UMSDOS places an extra file in every relevant directory that
>> provides the extra information that Linux expects to find.
>>
>> I have NO problem with the latter fact - indeed, I see it as a
>> necessary and important step in the process. However, I have to
>> question the wisdom of the former fact, which doesnae make any sense
>> to me.
>>
>> My preference would be for UMSDOS to assume the underlying file system
>> to be the VFAT file system, which has already done away with that 8.3
>> limit on filenames, as it would then have a much easier time in adding
>> the relevant extra properties than it does at present.
> You are right that it should not assume that the files are 8.3, but the
> mangled names produced MUST be 8.3, otherwise you'll break every attempt
> to use UMSDOS on basic DOS machines.
I hope you don't mind my pointing out that under the VFAT file system,
EVERY FILE HAS AN 8.3 FILENAME. Furthermore, this is done in a STABLE
way, something which the UMSDOS file system appears NOT to manage!!!
Dare I suspect that you've never used the VFAT file system yourself?
Try the following test sometime:
1. Set up a system with both Linux and MSDOS 6.22 or earlier on it,
each in their own [set of] partitions.
2. Mount the MSDOS partition under Linux as a VFAT file system.
3. Copy /sbin/fsck.ext2 to it.
4. Unmount the MSDOS partition, then reboot into MSDOS.
5. Have a look at the filename of the file created above.
Would you believe it, the file has a name that you can actually use,
even though MSDOS 6.22 and earlier do NOT support long filenames...
Best wishes from Riley.
-
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/