NTFS vs. Samba

Christopher Faylor me@cgf.cx
Tue Aug 31 13:18:00 GMT 2004

On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:07:09AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>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 removed it!

It would certainly break things for people who rely on setting
permissions on a FAT partition.

Maybe we need a survey on the cygwin list.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list