From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 20 16:51:24 2009 Return-Path: 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 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 , Tim Kientzle , Lowell Gilbert 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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