Re: 2.2.16pre nls in 2.3? [OT]

From: Andrzej Krzysztofowicz (ankry@pg.gda.pl)
Date: Fri May 19 2000 - 10:36:22 EDT

  • Next message: Simon Richter: "Re: ACPI: is it at all relevant for other archs than ix86?"

    > > Known problems with doing this as it is now done in 2.2?
    >
    > None

    I looked at the "default NLS" option in 2.2.16pre and have some doubts in
    this point:

    1. Wouldn't it be better to have choice list here ?
       It might make Config.in to be more complex (as you need to set a string
       value), but it is able to be done and, IMHO, is more convenient fon an
       "end user".
       At present, it is impossible to get any help on "string" options
       in make config/oldconfig ("?" is treated as a value; should it be
       considered to be a bug or a feature ? )

       I have a patch which can be applied to make it a "choice" list:
    ftp://rudy.mif.pg.gda.pl/pub/People/ankry/linux-patches/2.2/diff.2.2.16-1.nls
       but it needs also (minimum the last section of):
    ftp://rudy.mif.pg.gda.pl/pub/People/ankry/linux-patches/2.2/diff.2.2.16-1.config

    2. The default value. Shouldn't it be better to set it to "iso8859-1" ?
       vfat uses the "default" value as nls_io, not nls_disk; I do not
       think that porting Linux applications to use codepages is the best
       way. Maybe there should be two (nls_codapage_default, nls_io_default;
       or more - one/two per filesystem) defaults ?

    3. As I checked vfat in 2.2 does support name conversion only partially:
       you can properly read file names created by DOS/Win and copy them to
       ext2. But creating new files and renaming existing ones using new
       names containing high code characters does NOT work properly.
       (in the best case you get long and short name with absolutely
       DIFFERENT encoding).
       NLS support seems to work fine in 2.3 vfat.

       Is there any chance for porting 2.3 NLS support in vfat to 2.2 ?

    4. MSDOS filesystem. It does not support NLS. However, it accepts
       "codepage=" and "iocharset=" mount options, and then ignores them
       (both: in 2.2 and 2.3).
       Is it intentional ?
       Is it unfinished ?
       Is it better to remove the "codepage/iocharset" mount option support ?

       This behaviour is annoying.

    Regards
       Andrzej

    PS. I didn't test iso9660 and ncpfs.

    --
    =======================================================================
      Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz               ankry@mif.pg.gda.pl
      phone (48)(58) 347 14 61
    Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math.,   Technical University of Gdansk
    

    - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 19 2000 - 10:43:00 EDT