On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think the concept is to raise the bar by putting vfat into the
> kernel. If vfat doesn't depend on the msdos code, then omit msdos
> to reduce size and risk of manipulating vfat filenames as msdos
> filenames (which can strand LFN data in the FAT).
What about practically? For all technical purposes, we're using VFAT
already - at least, *I* don't know anyone still using MS-DOS and Win3.x -
so we might as well use the VFAT stuff instead of MSDOS and skip the 8.3
format. Technically we're using the wrong thing anyways. =)
Also, no, vfat.o doesn't depend on msdos.o in any way; there's FAT hooks
in the kernel that both of them rely on instead.
--
George Metz
Commercial Routing Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We know what deterrence was with 'mutually assured destruction' during
the Cold War. But what is deterrence in information warfare?" -- Brigadier
General Douglas Richardson, USAF, Commander - Space Warfare Center
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
