Re: Partitioning rethink

On 2003-03-13 at 09:59:26 [-0800], Axel D=F6rfler wrote:
> Tyler Dauwalder <tyler-cyCl/[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ooops, my bad. I don't actually want to remove full userland
> > functionality, but I didn't really make that clear. I guess what I
> > was
> > really getting at was this: what about adding an API to enumerate=20
> > all
> > current mountable volumes=3D3F That seems like a useful service to
> > provide,
> > and it has to be implemented for OpenTracker anyway, right=3D3F This=20
> > way
> > it
> > could be used elsewhere.
>=20
> OpenTracker also displays volumes that aren't mountable. Perhaps we
> should just have a "mountable" flag=3D3F In any way, if there is no file
> system for this partition, it just can't be mountable :))

Is there a reason unmountable volumes are displayed?

> > Well, I did some more reading, and even read through the linux udf
> > filesystem mailing list archives, and here's what I've come up with:
> > ...
>=20
> Thanks for digging so deep into this stuff :-)

No problem. :-)

> > So, since single filesets spanning multiple volumes is part of the
> > post-R1 plans, I will not plan on supporting that feature in udf
> > until
> > then (incidentally, I will be starting on a udf filesystem add-on as
> > soon as justifiably possible :-). This is fine, as we can be
> > standards
> > compliant and only support single-volume, single-partition udf. This
> > type of support would also allow us to still support multi-fileset
> > udf
> > on single multi-session volumes.
>=20
> Very nice! If you need any help with that (moral support and so on=20
> ;-)) I'll be glad to help out.=20

Thanks, I'll be sure to hit you up for help when I need it. :-)

> Having UDF support would be really great
> (even for R1) - do you plan on doing write support as well=3D3F

Well, I'll at least write a mkudffs tool, but I might add write support=20
in the filesystem add-on too (especially if Windows will recognize hard=20
drive partitions formatted with udf).=20

-Tyler