From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 19 08:17:14 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDADF106566C for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:17:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from kientzle.com (kientzle.com [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04888FC17 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:17:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: (from root@localhost) by kientzle.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) id n6J8HE2D061335; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:17:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from dark.x.kientzle.com (fw2.kientzle.com [10.123.1.2]) by kientzle.com with SMTP id 4b8ditzrwtf8nazu6p8xd6y7aa; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:17:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4A62D689.1050906@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:17:13 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090601 SeaMonkey/1.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Hay References: <4A615602.4090000@freebsd.org> <20090719075459.GA31256@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20090719075459.GA31256@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "'freebsd-current@freebsd.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:17:15 -0000 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. Tim