On 2012-06-26 22:21:29, Mark Szentes-Wanner wrote:
> can you please repeat it for some of us what these possible new design
> limitations would be?
Hi Mark - I added some high level details to top of the bug description.
> While from the strict technical point of view I agree with you that the
> code works as per specification, I am very disappointed that this issue
> could not be solved in 3 years. For current end user systems, a file
> system with 143 characters maximum file name length is not fit for
> everyday use.
I understand that it is a frustrating technical limitation, especially
for an end user.
The filename length restriction affects each user differently. I know
many people that have never hit the limit in everyday use but I do
appreciate the large number of people that are affected by the limit.
I hope that someone comes up with a great idea and submits a patch that
I can commit upstream. Until then, eCryptfs will have this filename
length limitation.
On 2012-06-26 22:21:29, Mark Szentes-Wanner wrote:
> can you please repeat it for some of us what these possible new design
> limitations would be?
Hi Mark - I added some high level details to top of the bug description.
> While from the strict technical point of view I agree with you that the
> code works as per specification, I am very disappointed that this issue
> could not be solved in 3 years. For current end user systems, a file
> system with 143 characters maximum file name length is not fit for
> everyday use.
I understand that it is a frustrating technical limitation, especially
for an end user.
The filename length restriction affects each user differently. I know
many people that have never hit the limit in everyday use but I do
appreciate the large number of people that are affected by the limit.
I hope that someone comes up with a great idea and submits a patch that
I can commit upstream. Until then, eCryptfs will have this filename
length limitation.