Filesystems and case-insensitivity

Posted Nov 29, 2018 10:46 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
In reply to: Filesystems and case-insensitivity by dgm
Parent article: Filesystems and case-insensitivity

What's the difference in practice then?

Seriously, the idiocy with free-form filenames should be fixed.

Filesystems and case-insensitivity

Posted Nov 29, 2018 12:43 UTC (Thu) by hkario (subscriber, #94864) [Link] (2 responses)

because that file could have been created on a system working in CP437 where it would be shown as ♀

Just because a byte string is an invalid sequence in one encoding doesn't mean it's an invalid sequence in all encodings.

Filesystems and case-insensitivity

Posted Nov 29, 2018 18:28 UTC (Thu) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]

UTF-8 won. We should start giving it its well-earned victory parade. Don't you that, after we're finished banning non-UTF-8 encodings, and after we ban illegal or bizarre code sequences, and after we start normalizing filenames into consistent form, we'll end up in a better place? If in the process of doing that we can't access files called ♀ from old volumes without special compatibility mount options, so be it.

Filesystems and case-insensitivity

Posted Nov 29, 2018 20:47 UTC (Thu) by perennialmind (guest, #45817) [Link]

That's why I thought it was a brilliant choice to require that directories be empty in order to switch on the "text mode dentries" attribute. You sidestep the "reinterpret" problem in trade for a save/copy errors that are easy to surface to end users. I'm not sure how overlayfs union mounts would work though.