"Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, a question and a comment: > > question: can hald (or whatever it uses) distinguish between hybrid > filesystems (sharing some or all files and file data blocks but having > different > metadata) and distinct filesystems? Seems to me that all _distinct_ > filesystems > should be mounted, but ideally just the _preferred_ one of the hybrid > filesystems should be mounted.
You could try to find all filesystems on the medium that you know..... > comment: The problem is how to determine "preferred"; that arguably > relates to the target audience(s) and system(s) (and how they would handle the > media) more than anything else, so I doubt there's a simple answer at > this time. > > For some hybrids, there may be a "preferred" filesystem type; but for many, > different types might be appropriate to different OSs (i.e. a > RockRidge+Joliet+HFS might be appropriate for RockRidge on Unix/Linux, > Joliet on Windows, and HFS on MacOS), although there might be exceptions. I would guess that HFS will go away very soon. I am planning to remove the related support from mkisofs soon as HFS is not large file aware. There never has been HFS support on Solaris. > It would at least be nice if Linux and Solaris (and maybe some of the *BSDs) > agreed on how to handle such situations more or less consistently. The simplest method to achive this is to deliver code. Otherwise, you are just a follower of the Linux community. > If a convention was developed for a hints file name and contents that > described which fs to prefer under what conditions (and was visible under > a consistent name in all the variants of a hybrid), that would allow for > media that contained it, some clear indication of the media author's intent. > But I don't know that anything like that exists, and it wouldn't help existing > media or platforms not supporting it. This is not possible in the filesystem meta data and thus you could do it only in a file inside the FS. > As for writable media: first, for _any_ hybrid filesystem, I think I'd favor > mounting it read-only, even if one only mounts udfs, and even if the > media is writable. That's because I think that determining how (and if) > it was possible to write to the filesystem without invalidating the other > hybrids might get unreasonably complicated; and I think it's better to > default to doing something safe rather than something maximally enablling. > If someone wants to do something trickier, they can always stop hald and > mount by hand. Although IMO it would be nice if one could either > communicate to hald that it should give up interest in/reclaim interest in > a specific device, or that until the next media change on a particular device, > it should alter its default behavior. That would allow either (simpler) > taking manual control of a single device without stopping hald, or > (trickier) having it undo whatever it did for a particular media and then > redo it with altered behavior as specified. With some work, that could > be reasonably safely and easily controlled by the end user (as long as they > couldn't override nodev/nosuid). ISO-9660(alone or with Rock Ridge) as well as Joliet is always read only. Question: does HAL mount UDF read/write? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org