-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 According to Corinna Vinschen on 6/11/2005 9:00 AM: > Good question. It shouldn't, but I wouldn't give any gurantee. > However, mkisofs doesn't know the type of the underlying FS, so > it just plays safe. The hash algorithm isn't 100% correct? Well... > I'm wondering how they mean it and why. Any hint would be nice.
At one point in the distant past (http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2002-04/msg01648.html), the hash algorithm was very weak on strings differing only in the suffix (a common feature of pathnames) (if I recall correctly, d:\cygwin\tmp\classpath\java\n{et,io} clashed on my win98 box), and I submitted a patch to improve it. I think a different hash is in use today, but it is likewise strong enough for every file I've run across. The other weirdness is that on FAT and other file systems that don't support hard links, link() is faked by producing copies, which no longer have unique inodes, so maybe that is part of the problem. - -- Life is short - so eat dessert first! Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCtsPg84KuGfSFAYARApWqAKCkR2eK+tygxnz6S7VSheA/35IeyACgubT2 eTO2CXPYKNY7tyePOviYLWg= =IfOm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
