X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<55F5B34E.1080206@gmx.de>
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:33:02 +0200
From:	"Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101206 SUSE/3.1.7 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Non DOS-friendly file names in DJGPP packages (binary and documentation
	only)
References:	<55F53293 DOT 605 AT iki DOT fi>
In-Reply-To:	<55F53293.605@iki.fi>
X-Provags-ID:	V03:K0:lqR94sEDnzciZXJnmLJ1kehZhZEpQAKWdIreuYH18bdQwzG7PSo
	rnwM/O62RItCS5lZGbr4T5T4NgGnen1vzk7toIPjERZVEnF894ZCYr/zmzMt90N6Z3w1TAS
	l7B3asORdgZFNHU+/1vao7+Kx+5mkfYf4Vqe73aSxUahayc1jzj2u+4lSKKsyUxrcf7RXSn
	aImQAIzr3V2XjqSj+5PFA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults:	notjunk:1;V01:K0:mJemgDSufhE=:VhxuDxXlerr+qjxIozQIqr
	fVeeGRz1WJJ3flXDxiloEKHF4qGPe7kvSem5eMSP2UXAHUzMbGeh9LATan3pJU5kOBLBx2vgC
	X35sezrS9ZT91IsIQGehF6J/eK6WR990VZTJQV3D4SN1D8Ncm8D7rQ02ql8UpMaUKvTmzTyF1
	Gbo4Z36+UF0UElpIg76a/VxUj81lTSkre02QqxsglrULpPNb1SSai5yaxE6rYnrM9ys+4BO+S
	1aXn0t0VqZBVbtEDVGfh+rgnvAGZaYS8yXRqlJIETvNpoWo0LR/QzIWweLsgOoZpsjUIKALLP
	SD3Q8SCnElK6uZ4CBEjMfgl6KyVOed8ycwAab8CB+cwwrad8dkODlpx+3j1ANyPG4CDbyv9pT
	Nwm3HfVvftKVrvH9AfLUftH+EhqQr5XN6fKK0V29g/Ft++iuCj5lzZseL/mLelyWPm7k5eLn9
	DiOK5Mptx1D9PeSUffpHPBSN93zviCorbchqCjaNiX6NIvbKrY9FGPpmNY2KPQI8/3Uxy4mPh
	DFFx5+seXokQJ/qTPUwKeWdWYSPpShCn6WEtW3/RlFYAA8APg1L0kZCVv5+1PIqYnsHAEkO37
	V/qmZx8HcwwfGIt+vb+q+sh+C8C/9zXlE8jckhkelxNk9ogXr+my9SYAbwyPOvITW0cqNDAcy
	9Y+okgjMnT5ung4MfALlQ85m05puStY5pxTLbBvtnjUnb+j4cXco+qc0k6ezHlxV6POvd3fyt
	htredHLVrbM2A6WbTpfq0Qc1gxNlEE80qtJDuQ==
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Am 13.09.2015 10:23, schrieb Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]:
> Today I posted about such directory names in gettext and libiconv packages.
> This is however more widely spread problem. Wrote a simple script for performing
> a check (script silently skips source packages)
>
> 'unzip -t' together with sed and awk is used to generate file list as doschk do not
> catch incompatible directory names unless they are explicitly found in input
> (they are not present in manifest files I have created)
>
> I attaching also results of running this script on djgpp/beta directory of my local mirror
> (compressed with XZ as file was rather large)
>
> About source packages: I skipped them as for many of them we explicitly say that LFN
> support is required.
>
> Andris
>

I have inspected the list and I do not think that there are really serious issues.
The issue should only be considered serious if it inhibits the use of the port
on plain DOS.

As far as I have seen there are 5 types of issues:
1) Old ports that may have some SFN issues.  They will go into /deleted anyway
    and I do not have the time to fix this and I do not think that it is worth
    to be done.
2) There are binary ports with directory names that are not SFN clean like:
      gnu/findutils-4.2.33
    This is a pitty but I do not think that it is worth to be fixed because the
    content of the directory is extracted anyway and the user can access to
    those files.  This issue can be fixed in a next port.
3) There are binary ports with directory names that contain ilicit characters
    for plain DOS like:
      gnu/gettext-0.19.1/gettext-tools/examples/hello-c++-kde
    This also not an issue because djtar or unzip will rename them during the
    extracting process.
4) There are binary ports that contain files that have no unique SFN like:
      share/doc/xz/examples_old/xz_pipe_comp.c
      share/doc/xz/examples_old/xz_pipe_decomp.c
    This is typicaly the case when the install target also installs some sample
    under /share/foobar-1.2.3.  Of course, "foobar-1.2.3" stands only as an
    example for some port.  In the next port version I will modify the install
    target so that kind of files becomes no longer a part of the binary archive.
    If some one installs on plain DOS he usualy has reduced ressources and there
    is no reason to clobber the DJGPP installation tree with such package specific
    sample code that has no real relation to DJGPP.  This will make the binary
    archives smaller too and if the user is really interested in that sample code
    he can install the source package in some temporary directory.
5) OpenSSL is a special case.  I have clearly explained in every announcement of
    port that the man pange directory is not SFN clean.  There is a very large
    number of man pages that would need to be renamed into some kind of DOS specific
    fantasy name.  This would be a tedious job that had to be done for every port.
    For every port I would have to inspect if names have changed or files removed
    or added only to keep this renaming list up-to-date.  This effort is not worth
    to be done.  Every user that reads the announcement is aware that he must
    install the port with LFN enabled by some LFN driver.  After that he can
    disable LFN again.  Anyway the port itself is SFN clean and is full operational
    no matter if certain man pages have been installed or not.

It should be completely clear that source archives always require LFN support.  To
configure and build some port LFN support is always required.  I will not waiste my
time fixing things like that.  In other words, the time of short file names has
long gone.

Regards,
Juan M. Guerrero

- Raw text -