NTFS vs. Samba
Pierre A. Humblet
Tue Aug 31 13:07:00 GMT 2004
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 30 19:26, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> > At 11:35 AM 8/30/2004 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >On Aug 30 00:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >> In that vein, should we eliminate ntea functionality entirely? It
> > >> creates huge files on FAT* partitions and is not required for non-FAT.
> > >>
> > >> Why do we need it?
> > >
> > >Really, I don't know. Personally I'd be in favor of removing it (together
> > >with EA for symlinks on NTFS).
> > No objection at all. We can even remove the fs_has_ea guessing game.
> I'm just scratching my head if removing ntea might seriously break some
> peoples' installation. Is there anything which won't work anymore if
> ntea goes away?
Well, after sending my e-mail I had second thoughts for the same reason
as you. Then I decided that although it may break installations, there
must always be a workaround, because everything I know can be made to work
on 9x. But that requires change to installations, which can be a pain.
So given that ntea exists and that we are really only talking about small
changes, I would keep it after all. But don't put it back if you have already
More information about the Cygwin-developers