X-Authentication-Warning:	kendall.sfbr.org: jeffw set sender to jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org using -f
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2001 10:51:29 -0500
From:	JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Cc:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject:	Re: DJGPP 2.04 release date
Message-ID:	<20010511105129.A1794@kendall.sfbr.org>
Mail-Followup-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
References:	<20010508142430 DOT N23521 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010509132856 DOT 19857O-100000 AT is> <20010509093658 DOT C27959 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <9743-Wed09May2001190506+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To:	<9743-Wed09May2001190506+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>; from eliz@is.elta.co.il on Wed, May 09, 2001 at 07:05:07PM +0300
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

-: Otherwise, IMHO we simply retrack the bad design decisions
-: made by Microsoft.  They at least have the excuse that they were
-: trying to solve a problem no one ever thought about.

Do you consider appropriating unused directory entries to hold the LFN
entry as one of those decisions?  (It strikes me as horrible, but that's
just me.)

Thanks, Eli, you've given me lots to think about.

Indeed, it seems that any DJGPP+DOS-specific LFN utility would be free
to define its own `standards', provided the LFN API reports the right
information.  Just thinking out loud, now, I'm wondering about some sort
scheme for FAT<-->inode mapping....

-- 
jtw

- Raw text -