On Sunday 10 April 2011 20:19:42 Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 25.03.2011 at 14:17:06 +0000, Steve McIntyre
<st...@einval.com>
wrote:
> If we really want to meet the spec, we should be aiming for < 64
> characters, but that affects 98 packages and I'm not *too* bothered
>
> about it since testing shows no issues thus far. I'm tempted to
file:
> * serious bugs on the packages over 90 characters
> * normal bugs on those over 80
> * wishlist bugs on those over 64
>
> Thoughts?
just a shot into the dark:
Would it be feasible, or at least possible, to file bug reports with
"upstream" to have the permissible length of filenames officially
extended? I mean, everyone has started to use long file names,
haven't
they?
JFTR: xorriso 1.0.6, (with accompanying underling libburnia libraries)
was released yesterday, and hit sid some ten hours ago, features:
-compliance rule (yes, these are options to deviate from the standard)
"joliet_long_names" Joliet leaf names up to 103 unicode characters
rather than 64.
"joliet_long_paths" Joliet paths longer than 240 characters.
"long_paths" allows ISO file paths longer than 255 characters.
...
-as mkisofs -joliet-long
(sorry in case of email brokeness, on the road->webmail)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/046b852c422d8c7532a7ccd4dc4e1...@spnet.net
