Hi,
thanks for your feedback, Thomas :)
I attched the step files hope you can get the details.
before share my comments, i think i need to clear the test scenaro firstly.
[EVN]: 1. Debian , xorriso demo with libisofs-1.5.0
2. MS Win10, file manager that can burn iso9660+joliet or udf media fs(file system).
[Step]: 1. burn "step1_1.txt , step1_2.txt" on Debian with iso9660+joliet fs via xorriso demo.
-> after step1, use "xorriso -dev /dev/sr0 lsl" can get file list :
'step1_1.txt'
'step1_2.txt'
2. burn "Step2_1.txt , Step2_2.txt" on Win10's file manager.
-> after step2, can get all files'name no "_1". and view on Win10 file manager as below:
step1_1.txt
step1_2.txt
Step2_1.txt
Step2_2.txt
3. burn "step3_1.txt , step3_2.txt" again on Debian via xorriso demo, and fetched Step1- Step2 files last name have been changed to "_1"??
-> before step3, use "xorriso -dev /dev/sr0 lsl" can get all files changed to
'Step2_1.txt;1'
'Step2_2.txt;1'
'step1_1.txt;1'
'step1_2.txt;1'
-> after step3, use "xorriso -dev /dev/sr0 lsl" can get all files as below:
'Step2_1.txt;1'
'Step2_2.txt;1'
'step1_1.txt;1'
'step1_2.txt;1'
'step3_1.txt'
'step3_2.txt'
-> add view it on Window10 file manager, changed to
step1_1.txt_1
step1_2.txt_1
Step2_1.txt_1
Step2_2.txt_1
step3_1.txt
step3_2.txt
Q: why input " -compliance omit_version_off " in my demo?
A: from step 2, windows add ";1" on each files' last name, i think this may the root cause caused difference from Xorriso and Windows10 file manager,
so i want to set " -compliance omit_version_off " to avoid the differnt pamamter set on Xorriso demo.
from your comment, seems "-compliance only_iso_version_off" can make the xorriso burn action avoid the differnent? i will try it later. If not, pealse share me how can i do to avoid the different between Debian and Windows file manager? thanks a lot.
------------------ ???????? ------------------
??????: "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net>;
????????: 2020??11??19??(??????) ????8:31
??????: "bug-xorriso"<bug-xorriso@gnu.org>;
????: "????/wx????"<mfreesky@qq.com>;
????: Re: [report] [bug] libisofs cant omit ";1" with "omit_version_off" set, and windows marked ";1" as "_1" with file name.
Hi,
> Before the process, i set "omit_version_off" to support omit the version
> number (";1") at the end of the ISO-9660 identifiers.
This setting disables the omission of ISO 9660 version numbers. I.e. they
get appended to the file names.
If you want no such version numbers, the setting would have to be
-compliance omit_version
> I try to burn some files on Debian with "iso9660 + Joliet" file system
> first, and burn on Windows later, again on Debian.
What program do you use to burn on MS-Windows ?
> Step1: burn "step1_1.text","step1_2.txt" on Debian, no ";1" on each file.
$ echo step1_1.text >/u/test/C01119_mfreesky/step1_1.text
$ echo step1_2.text >/u/test/C01119_mfreesky/step1_2.text
$ xorriso -compliance omit_version_off \
-joliet on \
-outdev test.iso \
-map /u/test/C01119_mfreesky /
...
Written to medium : 35 sectors at LBA 0
Writing to 'test.iso' completed successfully.
$ sudo mount test.iso /mnt/iso
mount: /dev/loop0 is write-protected, mounting read-only
$ ls /mnt/iso
step1_1.text step1_2.text
$
We see no version numbers because Linux shows the Rock Ridge names by
default.
To see the ISO 9660 names without any beautification you have to disable
Rock Ridge, Joliet, and ISO 9660 name mapping:
$ sudo umount /mnt/iso
$ sudo mount -o norock,nojoliet,map=off test.iso /mnt/iso
mount: /dev/loop0 is write-protected, mounting read-only
$ ls /mnt/iso
STEP1_1.TEXT;1 STEP1_2.TEXT;1
$
The Joliet names have no version numbers. To get them, one would use
-compliance only_iso_version_off
To get no version numbers, do
$ xorriso -compliance omit_version \
-joliet on \
-outdev test.iso \
-map /u/test/C01119_mfreesky /
> Step2: burn "Step2_1.text","Step2_2.txt" on Windows, and each file marked
> with ";1"
From here on i cannot follow your description any more.
Please tell by which program you burnt on MS-Windows and how the files of
the ISO from step 1 get into step 2 and 3.
In general it looks like step 2 equipped old and new file names with
version numbers. Maybe because MS-Windows shows the files with them ?
> I try to track the codes on libisofs, i can sure the code have marked the
> ";1" with my print:
To reach that "fprintf()" call, you have to enable Joliet version numbers.
As said:
-compliance only_iso_version_off
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
step1_nomarked.png