On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:25:06AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Friday 05 December 2014 03:09:11 Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >> So I think that it is better to use LogicalVolumeIdentifier
> > >> for libblkid LABEL. And not current VolumeIdentifier.
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> >
> > If you change how the LABEL value is read from the disk, every
> > user will see different LABEL values than they saw in the
> > past.
> >
> > Dale
>
> Yes, but apparently other systems are using LABEL from
> LogicalVolumeIdentifier. So now you see different labels on
> different systems which is not good too.
>
> Also that bsd project UDFclient (which is working on Linux too!)
> is using LogicalVolumeIdentifier as volume/disk name in newfs_udf
> tool.
>
> I looked into grub2 code and it is identifying UDF label also
> from LogicalVolumeIdentifier. So if you want to boot something
> from UDF FS via grub you probably see label problems...
>
> So I think that rather than using broken linux implementation is
> better to fix it (which could bring problems with different label
> names in new version). And I would like to see human readable
> label as "555e3160".
It's more important to not introduce regression, if you have LABEL= in
your fstab then you don't want to see that after util-linux update
your setting is obsolete and filesystem unmounted.
It would be possible use another header field (LogicalVolumeIdentifier) for
LABEL= only if the currently used field is empty.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
