[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ambrose Li) quoted and then wrote: >On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 11:40:59PM -0400, Rob Bogus wrote: > >> The user deliberately selected an option to make those forks >> visible. Linux doesn't (deliberately) make things dificult, >> it just makes the default safe in most cases, and allows >> you to make a choice. If you ask to see the fork you can't >> complain that the fork is visible. > >Yes, that's why I say it is my fault but also a bug in the Linux >docs. As someone who does not know all the details of the >ISO9660 standard, one would never have thought that the resource >fork and the data fork would have the same name and therefore >the resource fork would make the data fork invisible. Certainly >the user (myself) made a stupid choice, and the choice is made >because the documentation did not make it clear that the option >is unsafe. In fact, I did read all of the mount and mkisofs man >pages, and still made this stupid choice, perhaps it is not >unreasonable to say that the docs *are* unclear. > >I did submit a bug report; the man page should mention this in >the future...
The ISO 9660 bit specifies that the very first extent is the resource fork. The Linux option makes that first extent separately visible. What effect does not Linux option have on the _other_ extents that also have the same name ? One must use multiple extents to have an ISO 9660 file larger than a certain size, or one that spans volumes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
