On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Matej Horvat wrote: > You're making this a bigger problem than it is. I'm not suggesting we move > "Windows 95 LFN" functions into the kernel, just that we modify the kernel > to set the creation times of new files, which is a trivial thing to do > (just two extra assignment statements) and it benefits (if you could call > it that) programs that call "Windows 95 LFN" functions or at least other > operating systems and (I'm pretty sure) it breaks nothing. > > Although, taking another look at it, the comment above the init_direntry > function does say "creation/access stamps 0 as per MS-DOS 7.10", so > apparently not setting those times was a deliberate decision. In that > case, fine, I understand that my suggestion is going to be rejected (and > like I said, I can live with a custom kernel), but I still don't > understand how setting them would break compatibility.
Well, again, said functionality is part of "LFN". -uso. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
