From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Kost Subject: bug#22797: Using UUID for vfat file system is impossible Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:50:19 +0300 Message-ID: <8760xcpo1w.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87egc1dhuc.fsf@gmail.com> <87vb5c3ajv.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41244) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZ1wI-0007zX-2K for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:51:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZ1wE-0005NJ-Lj for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:51:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49259) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZ1wE-0005NE-Hu for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:51:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aZ1wE-0003RO-5R for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:51:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87vb5c3ajv.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 25 Feb 2016 19:32:52 +0100") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 22797-done@debbugs.gnu.org Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2016-02-25 21:32 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost skribis: > >> Hello, unlike other file system types, FAT volumes have short UUIDs, >> for example: "58D7-4FA5", but such an UUID cannot be used in an >> operating system declaration: >> >> (file-system >> (device (uuid "58D7-4FA5")) >> (title 'uuid) >> (type "vfat") >> ;; ... >> ) >> >> because (uuid "58D7-4FA5") errors. > > That=E2=80=99s expected. :-) I=E2=80=99ve clarified this in 0767f6a: Ah, actually I thought it's expected as this is not a "normal" UUID. Thanks for the clarification. --=20 Alex