Danny Milosavljevic <dan...@scratchpost.org> skribis: > 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?
I’d prefer to add a special ‘iso-9660-uuid’ form similar to ‘uuid’ in (gnu system file-systems). That way we could detect that we get a valid UUID at macro-expansion time or system-instantiation time, rather than end up with an error at boot time. WDYT? Ludo’.
