On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday 31 October 2017 10:35:48 Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> 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: >> > 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 > > I did tests with MS-DOS and Windows versions (results in previous > email), and they seems to be compatible how they read label. > > Based on results I would suggest to ignore label from the boot sector > when reading label. So, for tools which are not doing that to add --ignore-boot-sector-label (or alike) [recommended] right? We don't actually know how many users (scripts) are relying on current behaviour. If there are only few, we may introduce backward compatibility switch --read-boot-sector-label > This makes behavior consistent with older MS-DOS > systems and also all Windows systems. This change would be a problem > only for users who have label stored only in boot sector. After change > they would not see label anymore -- exactly same what MS-DOS or Windows > show them. Seems that mkdosfs stores label to both location, since > support for label was introduced. So different label would be visible > only for users who used dosfslabel prior to version 3.0.16. > > What do you think? So, in summary it looks like a documentation needs update (to mark your research). -- 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
