Re: Joliet and release ISOs?

On Sunday 19 July 2009 09:52 am, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Tim Kientzle <kientzle_at_freebsd.org> writes:
> > John Hay wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 09:56:34PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> >>> Do we need Joliet extensions on the release ISOs?
> >>>
> >>> The reason I ask is a little involved:  jkim_at_ recently
> >>> pointed out to me that tar in -CURRENT can no longer
> >>> extract symlinks from the release ISOs.
> >>>
> >>> I tracked this down to the fact that the release ISOs
> >>> have both Joliet and RockRidge extensions and tar now
> >>> supports (and actually prefers) Joliet extensions when
> >>> it sees them. Joliet doesn't support symlinks, so tar
> >>> doesn't see symlinks on disks with both kinds of extensions.
> >>
> >> What is the reason for prefering Juliet in tar? Can't we
> >> just swap the preference?
> >
> > Because of the way libarchive works internally coupled with
> > basic differences in how Joliet and RockRidge information
> > is stored, it turns out that libarchive has to decide
> > whether or not to use the Joliet information before it
> > can tell whether RockRidge information is available.
> > So preferring RockRidge is actually quite difficult.
> >
> > I would like to change this, but it's going to be
> > quite a while before I have enough time to work on it.
>
> Sounds like you're out of good options then.  Maybe a good
> temporary workaround would be a switch to disable Joliet support?

It sounds reasonble to me because libarchive does not have ISO9660 
writer yet and Joliet extensions are only useful for M$ OS users, 
ATM.  In fact, many ISO9660 file system manipulation utilities out 
there do something similar, e.g., #ifdef MS 
enable_joliet_by_default(); #else disable_joliet_by_default(); 
#endif.  If someone really needs it, it can be turned on by 
'--option=joliet', right?

Thanks for tracking down the problem for me!

Jung-uk Kim