🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: mark@alsvid.une.edu.au (Mark Garrett Internet: mark@arvak.une.edu.au Phone: +61 66 20 3859)

>From article <14sun2INNqk@ftp.UU.NET>, by henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer):
>>Submitted-by: Christophe.Wolfhugel@univ-lyon1.fr (Christophe Wolfhugel)
>>The current limit of around 100-128 characters for the filename
>>is catastrophic. Simply too short!
> 


I'd very much agree with this statement. In BSD file names can be nearly 1
block long (1024 characters - inode) 100-128 is very short. 

	Since I just come into this discussion ; By file name length
does this refer only to each directory/file name or the full path?

	Or does the standard have other means of recording the files path +
a file name of 100-128 characters?

	Why is it necessary to have fixed length filenames anyway? I would
have thought it was just as easy to have a variable length file name in the
range of 1-2^16 or even 1-2^32 as if was to have 1-128 or 255.


> Actually, the 1003.1 tar format accommodates 255.  Still a bit tight


	I've tripped up on this little beauty even in standards BSD tar
while copying directories (i.e tar cf - . | (cd /dir;tar xpf -) where
the directory path exceeds the limit on filename. Which is very
easy to find in copying user directories.


	Cheers
		Mark :)
-- 
Mark Garrett	Internet:  mark@arvak.une.edu.au	Phone: 	+61 66 20 3859
   University of New England, Northern Rivers, Lismore NSW Australia.


Volume-Number: Volume 28, Number 68