On Tuesday, 25 February 2025 14:48:52 Greenwich Mean Time Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Monday 24 February 2025 22:48:26 Greenwich Mean Time Frank Steinmetzger > > wrote: > > You need a common denominator. ExFat is a good candidate, methinks, as it > > won’t give any issues with file permissions. Since I’ve never held an iOS > > device in my hands, I have no idea about what FS they support. But the > > answer should be just a short DuckDuck away. :) > > I tried exfat on a USB M.2 drive at the weekend. I tripped over soft links: > I keep a plain copy of /etc with the other tar files for ease of use, and > of course the run-level entries are all links. > > Yes, permissions are fine, but special files are not - not soft links, > anyway.
As I understand it neither FAT nor exFAT are POSIX-compatible and Linux permissions will not translate across. Both will acquire the ownership of whoever mounts the filesystem - e.g.: - udisks/GUI will mount them under the ownership of the user executing the mounting action in userspace; - mount command on the CLI will mount them as root. Any changed ACLs will not survive a remount. ACLs are possible with NTFS, but they will not translate 1:1 with MSWindows. I recall with the ntfs-3g driver you had to add a a file in the root directory, or each subdirectory(?), to specify some basic access rights. I am not sure how it works with the in-kernel driver today.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
