Re: DIRECTORY behavior with /= implementations

Kent M Pitman <pitman@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Thibault Langlois <thibault.langlois@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

The mapping of the pathname components into the concepts peculiar to
each file system is implementation-defined

OK thanks for your answer. We all have to live with that.
Nevertheless I think it would be more understandable if it was file
system-specific instead of implementation-specific.

I'm not sure this is literally true. One might get some warm fuzzy
from such wording, but after a while one would ponder about what that
fuzzy wording meant.

For example, I'm not sure to what extent Linux existed at the time of
the standard went out. (I don't recall the "feature freeze" date, but
it was a a few years before the final version--perhaps as early as
1988. We made essential changes after that up to publication time, but
it was hard to make such changes.)

Not Operating System, but File System. And it's even worse than that:
mount options may intervene. For example, when you mount an ISO-9660
file system on Linux, you get a subdirectory tree where you have files
with names in 8.3 with a version number! That is, unless you have
some unix or "Joliet" extension which gives you normal file names, but
you can still give options to mount to see it without these
extensions.

Another example would be MacOSX, where the default file system with
the default options is not case sensitive, but where you still can
mount "normal" unix file systems that are case sensitive.

So, even in a given Operating System, you may have serveral File
Systems with different properties, and different mapping to the OS API
for FS access.


That said, if all implementations running on Linux could agree on the
mapping between ext2/ext3 file systems and CL pathnames, it already be
a nice step forward.

Similarly for all implementations running on MS-Windows to map NTFS and CL.



On the other hand, some implementations may want to present an
homogeneous view (for CL code) across various OS and FS, and this
requirement is at cross with the portability one (even if it eases
intra-'implementation' portability).


--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Multiple Hard Drives
    ... your linux system has detected the hard drive (dmesg said so when it ... you need to partition the hard drive. ... you need to have a file system on the hard drive. ... The mount program does this. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Mount AIX partition on linux
    ... don't forgot create aix folder under /mnt and -t it means file system type. ... The following link is man page for mount command under Linux and it will ...
    (RedHat)
  • Re: Running mame on linux
    ... Is there a version of mame that will run on it? ... you just need to tell Linux where Windows is (I had thought it had ... You add an existing file system to Linux by creating an empty directory ... Then you "mount" it there (hoping mount detects the ...
    (alt.games.mame)
  • Re: sharing between linux and windows? And Then Some.
    ... > to access a Linux share. ... > Im thinking that somehow i have to mount the XP share on FD2 first??? ... Samba file system). ...
    (alt.os.linux.redhat)
  • Re: Add hard drive
    ... Linux is not easy. ... Then you need to create the file system. ... Now that you have partitionyou will need to mount each ... >> partition at a location on your existing file system. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)