Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:51:09 -0400 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Cc: John Hay <jhay@meraka.org.za>, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org>, Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-current-local@be-well.ilk.org> Subject: Re: Joliet and release ISOs? Message-ID: <200907201251.13012.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4463doaifi.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> References: <4A615602.4090000@freebsd.org> <4A62D689.1050906@freebsd.org> <4463doaifi.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 19 July 2009 09:52 am, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> writes: > > John Hay wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 09:56:34PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > >>> Do we need Joliet extensions on the release ISOs? > >>> > >>> The reason I ask is a little involved: jkim@ recently > >>> pointed out to me that tar in -CURRENT can no longer > >>> extract symlinks from the release ISOs. > >>> > >>> I tracked this down to the fact that the release ISOs > >>> have both Joliet and RockRidge extensions and tar now > >>> supports (and actually prefers) Joliet extensions when > >>> it sees them. Joliet doesn't support symlinks, so tar > >>> doesn't see symlinks on disks with both kinds of extensions. > >> > >> What is the reason for prefering Juliet in tar? Can't we > >> just swap the preference? > > > > Because of the way libarchive works internally coupled with > > basic differences in how Joliet and RockRidge information > > is stored, it turns out that libarchive has to decide > > whether or not to use the Joliet information before it > > can tell whether RockRidge information is available. > > So preferring RockRidge is actually quite difficult. > > > > I would like to change this, but it's going to be > > quite a while before I have enough time to work on it. > > Sounds like you're out of good options then. Maybe a good > temporary workaround would be a switch to disable Joliet support? It sounds reasonble to me because libarchive does not have ISO9660 writer yet and Joliet extensions are only useful for M$ OS users, ATM. In fact, many ISO9660 file system manipulation utilities out there do something similar, e.g., #ifdef MS enable_joliet_by_default(); #else disable_joliet_by_default(); #endif. If someone really needs it, it can be turned on by '--option=joliet', right? Thanks for tracking down the problem for me! Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200907201251.13012.jkim>