On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 13:35 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > > Well... yes and no. Tla (any system archiving --hm... let's call it files-- > tries to be file-system agnostic. Then one's `native� metadata becomes > other's `alien� metadata. See for example Unix permissions on DOS. Or > HTs EAs on ext2. Or the file attributes you mentioned on VFAT. Or one > of Macs funny forks. And it goes on. Why shouldn't one of Archs applications > define its own thingie it wants attached to some files (like, as has already > come up here: ``this file is an MSDOS text file and I want it be CRLF > whenever checked out on MSDOS and just LF when checked out on UNIX��. > > Or whatever. > > The question being thrown back and forth here is: should Arch support this? > Does it make sense? If yes: at what level? Should it special-case some > ``important�� instances, like permissions (and maybe ownerships) and leave > the rest to users?
tla should support different os specific metadata storage implementations, in particular linux xattr and MacOS whateveritscalled (MacOS also has a metadata thing, doesn't it?) and Windows somethingsomething (is there a win equiv.?). It should also have a user interface for querying and setting metadata (so tla-specific scripts can rely on transparent cross-platform behaviour). In case the filesystem doesn't support it, tla will have to fallback onto a file-based storage. tla really should integrate with platform-specific tools. One piece of metadata would be the id, another would be line-ending behaviour (something like force-lf, force-crlf, error-crlf, ...), with no setting implying standard behaviour (do nothing). I guess the keys for these should all start with x-gnuarch- or gnuarch- to avoid name conflicts. Cheers, -- Ulf
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
