From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-07 20:51:41
At 11:35 AM 10/6/2004, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>JÃ¼rgen Hunold writes:
>> Hi !
>> On Tuesday 05 October 2004 15:10, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> > As you probably already know, we also need to take care of these:
>> Why ? Can someone point me to the rationale for this ?
>The original rationale was "to ensure file and directory names are
>Beman might be able to clarify whether ISO 9660/Level 2 requirements
>in particular were one of the motivating factors back then or not,
>but currently those are the primary driving force for getting
>Boost codebase to conform to these rules: We want to be able
>to put a Boost distribution on a CD in the unpacked form, and for
>that CD to be readable on the maximum number of platforms.
In addition to ISO 9660, the classic MAC OS, VMS, and various IBM legacy
OS's were considerations.
The classic MAC OS is less of a consideration today, and VMS also falls in
that category. The legacy IBM systems are still important in some quarters,
but we have never had any requests for Boost interoperability on those
systems that I'm aware of.
That pretty much leaves ISO 9660 as the main consideration. I'm under the
impression that Joliet extensions are now widely available, although I've
not done a systematic survey.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk