On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Bombe <aeb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: >> On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:13:11 Karel Zak wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: >> > > > The best for me is to keep blkid output backwardly compatible as much >> > > > as possible :-) >> > > >> > > Backward compatibility is a good reason. But what with situation when >> > > interoperability with other systems (e.g. Windows) does not work as >> > > expected? >> > >> > Then... I'm ready to do the changes to keep interoperability with the >> > rest of the universe. It's the same situation as with UDF, you know... >> >> Apparently situation is not same as with UDF. For UDF we have >> specification and basically all known UDF implementation by me were >> compatible how to treat label except blkid (which read different think). >> >> For FAT32 we have 3 different linux implementations (blkid, fatlabel, >> mlabel) and every one is slightly different in reading label (see >> results sent in previous emails). >> >> What is first needed to know if implementations are willing to change to >> be more or less same. And then decide what we want to change. >> >> Andreas, as fatlabel maintainer, what do you think about it? >> >> If you want, I can prepare patches for blkid and fatlabel to mimic >> behavior written in proposed solution. But I think it does not make >> sense to change just one Linux tool... > > I was worried that there might be some scripts or programs that expect If we really care about such scripts another approach might be to introduce a CLI switch to "spec compatible mode" to each tool and suggest in documentation to use it. There are also variants: - spec compatible - WinXX compatible - DOS compatible - etc -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- 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
