[Toybox] [PATCH] Fix SEC_TYPE for vfat and iso9660

[Rob Landley]

On 2/10/23 07:33, Eric Molitor wrote:
> Actually you were spot on with your feedback. I also checked with e2fsprogs,
> util-linux and busy box blkid and this is the most consistent ordering of output
> for SEC_TYPE.
> 
> - Eric
> ---
>  tests/blkid.test   | 2 +-
>  toys/other/blkid.c | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/blkid.test b/tests/blkid.test
> index 4c385dcb..7e625492 100755
> --- a/tests/blkid.test
> +++ b/tests/blkid.test
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ testing "f2fs" "BLKID f2fs" \
>    'temp.img: LABEL="myf2fs" UUID="b53d3619-c204-4c0b-8504-36363578491c"
> TYPE="f2fs"\n' \
>    "" ""
>  testing "iso" "BLKID iso" \
> -  'temp.img: SEC_TYPE="msdos" LABEL="MYISO" UUID="1970-01-02-12-55-42-00"
> TYPE="iso9660"\n' \
> +  'temp.img: LABEL="MYISO" UUID="1970-01-02-12-55-42-00" TYPE="iso9660"\n' \
>    "" ""

My TEST_HOST on devuan is doing UUID= before LABEL= for isofs. No idea why?

--- expected	2023-02-11 05:59:58.915956238 -0600
+++ actual	2023-02-11 05:59:58.923956238 -0600
@@ -1 +1 @@
-temp.img: LABEL="CDROM" UUID="2023-02-08-04-47-27-00" TYPE="iso9660"
+temp.img: UUID="2023-02-08-04-47-27-00" LABEL="CDROM" TYPE="iso9660"

Let's see what gentoo is doing... doesn't make it that far because it says
BLOCK_SIZE=1024 for ext2. Of course. (util-linux 2.33 vs 2.38.)

Right VERBOSE=all and... well, the weird "cdrom reports fields in reverse order
except TYPE= is still at the end" remains true, but the new util-linux version
added BLOCK_SIZE to most things, and a redundant looking LABEL_FATBOOT to msdos
and vfat.

I'm going to check in a wild guess at "currently least wrong", and throw the iso
image I made on ancient knoppix into the test file dir so it has something to
pass against for the moment so I can push stuff without obviously breaking make
tests.

And then go BACK to trying to finish the shell read builtin instead of diverging
into adding BLOCK_SIZE just now. (NO idea how to genericize that across
different filesystems, unless maybe they're consistent about storing it as a
1<<SIZE value?)

Rob

P.S. Would running the output through:

  sed 's/" \([A-Z]\)/"\n\1/g' | sort | xargs

be cheating? Mine producing fields in a consistent order and util-linux NOT
doing so is a divergence, but I don't think it's necessarily a _bug_?

P.P.S. What _is_ LABEL_FATBOOT anyway?