From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-08 15:51:43
Beman Dawes writes:
> At 11:35 AM 10/6/2004, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> >The original rationale was "to ensure file and directory names are
> >relatively portable":
> >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.
Thanks for the clarification.
> 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.
On major modern platforms, they are --
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
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