Richard van den Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > There is no bug in mkisofs.
>
> I beg to differ.
I am sorry, but mkisofs definitely does nothing wrong here.
You are trying to request extra features from mkisofs that
go beyond what the stanards grant you....
> > If the file names do not sort the way you like with the number of characters
> > you allow mkisofs to use for ISO-9660 it is _your_ fault:
>
> mkisofs makes choices in that case. It choses the order in which it
> makes the names unique. It choses to start with the last file on the
> command line giving it number 000. It then works it's way back to the
> first file on the command line. All I am reporting is that it makes more
> sense to me to start with the first file, and increase the 3 digit
> number until it reaches the last non-unique file on the command line.
If you believe that this could be done, you are welcome in trying to implement
it.
In case you meet the rules for contributors:
1) The new code needs to pass a test for correct indentation
using Cstyle(1).
2) Your new code needs to be well tested and documented.
3) Your changes must not break on any of the supported 30
OS platforms.
4) Your new code needs to pass my code review.
This means, I cannot see problems with the changes you did
contribute.
your changes will be integrated.
> If you are saying that mkisofs by design parses the files in reverse
> order when checking for ISO-9660 unique names, please explain why this
> is the logical thing to do.
This particular design has been made by Eric Youngdale and you would need
to proove that a design that meets your wishes will not cause other problems.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
