Date:	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:43:22 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
cc:	DJGPP-WORKERS <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: FAT32 detection
In-Reply-To:	<199909160824.KAA01554@propus.lu.erisoft.se>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990916134123.7952R-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Martin Stromberg wrote:

> Eli said:
> > Then returning FAT16 for NTFS seems to be the right thing (although we 
> > should document that this is only based on a functional equivalence).
> 
> I'm not sure how I would phrase that. Can you elaborate?

It should be clear from the docs that, in the case of NT, the value is 
always 16 for hard disks, but that it doesn't mean the volume is indeed 
FAT16 (or even FAT); it means that it only supports FAT16 functions.

- Raw text -