Hi Ludo, On Tue, 02 May 2017 23:11:05 +0200 l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > OK. Are these “UUIDs” 160-bit long like the “real” ones? If they are, > I’d suggest ignoring the problem for now.
No, unfortunately not. There's also a similar problem in the FAT support in the same module. I think Linux doesn't actually mean real DCE uuids when they say "uuid", so I don't think pretending that they are real uuids is going to be useful (because at some point control passes to /dev/disk/by-uuid, parted or grub - which interpret uuids like they want - which isn't necessarily as real uuids). So I think the best course of action is to drop the real DCE uuids entirely and make uuids be free-form strings - like these other programs already decided... What do you think?
