From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 20 16:51:24 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0011106566C;
	Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:51:23 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:51:09 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <4A615602.4090000@freebsd.org> <4A62D689.1050906@freebsd.org>
	<4463doaifi.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
In-Reply-To: <4463doaifi.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200907201251.13012.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: John Hay <jhay@meraka.org.za>, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org>,
	Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-current-local@be-well.ilk.org>
Subject: Re: Joliet and release ISOs?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:51:24 -0000

On Sunday 19 July 2009 09:52 am, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> writes:
> > John Hay wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 09:56:34PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> >>> Do we need Joliet extensions on the release ISOs?
> >>>
> >>> The reason I ask is a little involved:  jkim@ recently
> >>> pointed out to me that tar in -CURRENT can no longer
> >>> extract symlinks from the release ISOs.
> >>>
> >>> I tracked this down to the fact that the release ISOs
> >>> have both Joliet and RockRidge extensions and tar now
> >>> supports (and actually prefers) Joliet extensions when
> >>> it sees them. Joliet doesn't support symlinks, so tar
> >>> doesn't see symlinks on disks with both kinds of extensions.
> >>
> >> What is the reason for prefering Juliet in tar? Can't we
> >> just swap the preference?
> >
> > Because of the way libarchive works internally coupled with
> > basic differences in how Joliet and RockRidge information
> > is stored, it turns out that libarchive has to decide
> > whether or not to use the Joliet information before it
> > can tell whether RockRidge information is available.
> > So preferring RockRidge is actually quite difficult.
> >
> > I would like to change this, but it's going to be
> > quite a while before I have enough time to work on it.
>
> Sounds like you're out of good options then.  Maybe a good
> temporary workaround would be a switch to disable Joliet support?

It sounds reasonble to me because libarchive does not have ISO9660 
writer yet and Joliet extensions are only useful for M$ OS users, 
ATM.  In fact, many ISO9660 file system manipulation utilities out 
there do something similar, e.g., #ifdef MS 
enable_joliet_by_default(); #else disable_joliet_by_default(); 
#endif.  If someone really needs it, it can be turned on by 
'--option=joliet', right?

Thanks for tracking down the problem for me!

Jung-uk Kim