Re: Linux & FAT32 label

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Bombe <aeb@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:49:31PM +0200, Pali Roh=C3=A1r wrote:
>> On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:13:11 Karel Zak wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:21:13AM +0200, Pali Roh=C3=A1r wrote:
>> > > > The best for me is to keep blkid output backwardly compatible as m=
uch
>> > > > as possible :-)
>> > >
>> > > Backward compatibility is a good reason. But what with situation whe=
n
>> > > interoperability with other systems (e.g. Windows) does not work as
>> > > expected?
>> >
>> > Then... I'm ready to do the changes to keep interoperability with the
>> > rest of the universe. It's the same situation as with UDF, you know...
>>
>> Apparently situation is not same as with UDF. For UDF we have
>> specification and basically all known UDF implementation by me were
>> compatible how to treat label except blkid (which read different think).
>>
>> For FAT32 we have 3 different linux implementations (blkid, fatlabel,
>> mlabel) and every one is slightly different in reading label (see
>> results sent in previous emails).
>>
>> What is first needed to know if implementations are willing to change to
>> be more or less same. And then decide what we want to change.
>>
>> Andreas, as fatlabel maintainer, what do you think about it?
>>
>> If you want, I can prepare patches for blkid and fatlabel to mimic
>> behavior written in proposed solution. But I think it does not make
>> sense to change just one Linux tool...
>
> 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

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko