[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions

    On Monday 2009-07-06 22:58, Jamie Lokier wrote:
    >> On Monday 2009-07-06 20:55, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
    >> >>How did things go with your mp3 players?
    >> >[...]
    >> >As it stands, my two devices always want a valid 8.3 name.
    >> On or about June 26, James Bottomley exchanged these words to Andrew Tridgell:
    >> >So the patch has been tested with Vista, Windows 7 and Windows XP
    >> [Test with Windows 98, and 16-bit GDI programs under XP]
    >> [3]
    >> [4]
    >> (pics kept for 7 days from now)
    >Summary of pics, for posterity:
    >[3] shows an [...] Question: In Windows 98, is it just the MS-DOS box
    >which cannot see some of the filenames, or is the normal file explorer
    >affected too?

    [3] shows an MS-DOS window on a Win98 desktop, having just run the
    "dir" command. In the background is a Win98 explorer window, for
    comparison with the dir command.
    Neither of the two ways of listing the contents of a directory show
    any filenames for <illegal 8.3, long name present> entries as produced
    by tridge's vfat patches.

    >[4] shows a old-looking Windows application, presumably 16-bit running
    > on XP, with a File Selection box listing the a:\ drive. Four
    > files are shown on the a:\ drive in a selection box, but the first
    > of them is completely blank.

    As the filename and the intro text had said..

    [4] 16-bit program (Windows 3.x era) running on XP (but probably also
    happens earlier). File dialog shows blank line where an entry has an
    illegal 8.3 name; also as a result of the vfat aptches.

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-07-06 23:11    [W:0.041 / U:133.412 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site