Re: [SOLVED] Re: strangeness when writing iso9660/hfs hybrid disks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) quoted and then wrote: >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>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. > >Wrong: Resource forks are not multi-extent files but associated files. >They are fully documented in ISO-9660. The standard even makes clear >that both files have the same name. The implementation of associated files is exactly that of subsequent extents (aside from ordering). My question was intended to read "What effect does that Linux option" have, with regard to handling multiple extents. Is there similar confusion, or is that part better documented. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SOLVED] Re: strangeness when writing iso9660/hfs hybrid disks
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 06:46:50AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The implementation of associated files is exactly that of > subsequent extents (aside from ordering). My question was > intended to read "What effect does that Linux option" have, > with regard to handling multiple extents. Is there similar > confusion, or is that part better documented. >From a user's viewpoint, no, it is as poorly documented. The user documentation for the "unhide" option, in its entirety, is as follows: unhide Also show hidden and associated files. There may be some docs in the kernel source, but I think for the user, having to look there is a bit too much. -- Ambrose LI Cheuk-Wing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ada.dhs.org/~acli/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
