Re: MBF alert: packages with very long source / .deb filenames

[George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net>]

On Sunday 10 April 2011 20:19:42 Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 25.03.2011 at 14:17:06 +0000, Steve McIntyre 
> <steve@einval.com>
wrote:
> > If we really want to meet the spec, we should be aiming for < 64
> > characters, but that affects 98 packages and I'm not *too* bothered
> >
> > about it since testing shows no issues thus far. I'm tempted to 
> file:
> >  * serious bugs on the packages over 90 characters
> >  * normal bugs on those over 80
> >  * wishlist bugs on those over 64
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> just a shot into the dark:
>
> Would it be feasible, or at least possible, to file bug reports with
> "upstream" to have the permissible length of filenames officially
> extended? I mean, everyone has started to use long file names, 
> haven't
> they?

JFTR: xorriso 1.0.6, (with accompanying underling libburnia libraries)
was released yesterday, and hit sid some ten hours ago, features:

-compliance rule (yes, these are options to deviate from the standard)
"joliet_long_names"  Joliet leaf names up to 103 unicode characters
rather than 64.
"joliet_long_paths" Joliet paths longer than 240 characters.
"long_paths" allows ISO file paths longer than 255 characters.
...
-as mkisofs -joliet-long

(sorry in case of email brokeness, on the road->webmail)