2GB visible partition size

[J. Grant]

Hello,

I noticed there is a 2GB visible partition size.  This seems to be
like FAT16, however I am running on ext3, is there a config option I can
set to remove this limit?

Regards

JG

[Tony Lambregts]

J. Grant wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed there is a 2GB visible partition size.  This seems to be
> like FAT16, however I am running on ext3, is there a config option I can
> set to remove this limit?
>
> Regards
>
> JG

I have a patch that allows this to be a config option.

http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/01/0229.html

I however have not been able to convince Alexandre to commit it to CVS. 
 What is the name of the program that has this problem?

[J. Grant]

Hi Tony,
> I have a patch that allows this to be a config option.
>
> http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/01/0229.html
>
> I however have not been able to convince Alexandre to commit it to CVS. 
> What is the name of the program that has this problem?

ReactOS CLI ver 0.1.1

I would like to see your patch applied, was there a reason it was declined?

Regards

JG

D:>free
Volume in drive D is Home       Serial number is 1234-5678
2,147,450,880 bytes total disk space
             0 bytes used

D:>free

Volume in drive D is Home          Serial number is 
1234-5678                       2,147,450,880 bytes total disk space 
                                                     0 bytes used
2,147,450,880 bytes free
D:>dir

<snip>

2,147,450,880 bytes free
D:>

[Tony Lambregts]

J. Grant wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> > I have a patch that allows this to be a config option.
> >
> > http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/01/0229.html
> >
> > I however have not been able to convince Alexandre to commit it to 
> > CVS. What is the name of the program that has this problem?
>
> ReactOS CLI ver 0.1.1

Ah... OK.
> I would like to see your patch applied,

Well so would I.
> was there a reason it was declined?

Actually Alexandre hasn't commented on it, so if it doesn't bit rot it 
still could be commited. However, at the time, there were some negative 
comments about it.  It seems that the major concern is that it should do 
more than it does. The relevant thread on its pros and cons is here.

http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2003/01/0600.html

At this point I have seen nothing to convince me that there is anything 
wrong with the patch, in fact I am quite pleased with it.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Tony Lambregts  writes:
> Actually Alexandre hasn't commented on it, so if it doesn't bit rot it
> still could be commited. However, at the time, there were some
> negative comments about it.  It seems that the major concern is that
> it should do more than it does.

Well, yes, if we really need to change the fstype it should be a
generic option that allows all types to be specified, not just
NTFS. And it shouldn't overload the existing "type" parameter, it
should be a separate entry. But it may be enough to simply always
return FAT32, if that works for the app in question. Returning NTFS is
a bit misleading anyway since we don't implement any of the
NTFS-specific features.

[J. Grant]

Hello,
> Actually Alexandre hasn't commented on it, so if it doesn't bit rot it 
> still could be commited. However, at the time, there were some negative 
> comments about it.  It seems that the major concern is that it should do 
> more than it does. The relevant thread on its pros and cons is here.
>
> http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2003/01/0600.html

Some interesting comments.  Regarding the partition description (win95,
unix, ntfs), it seems to only be the format of the filenames and the
permissions, perhaps there is an independent way of stating this? such
as "legacyfs" and "unixfs"...

If the FS is specified as win95 that is an alias of fat32/vfat and this
does not have 2GB file limit as I recall.  So I'm not sure why this
problem is even occuring.

Does NTFS FS really get returned to win9x applications that might have
been made before they could know about NTFS?
> At this point I have seen nothing to convince me that there is anything 
> wrong with the patch, in fact I am quite pleased with it.

Well, I would like to see this added to wine, Alexandre, would you
comment on this issue please?

Regards

JG

p.s. That <bewilderment> block by you was just hysterical :)