On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 02:40 AM, Pierre Duhem wrote:
I'm new to this list and searched the archive about the last mounted version in the HFS+ Volume Header Block. The spec says that external apps creating or modifying HFS+ volumes should use a creator code in this slot.
Mark Day answered, in a message from april :
myVolHeader.lastMountedVersion=kHFSPlusMountVersion; // implementation version which last mounted volume
You should pick some other constant unique to your implementation. That way, if a bug is found in your implementation, other implementations can check this version to correct for the bug.
When I pass my volume through Norton, I get an error on this precise point.
Who should I believe?
Me. :-)
The fact that Norton Disk Doctor (or at least some versions) complains about an unrecognized signature is a bug in Disk Doctor. I think they simply misunderstood the purpose of that field when they did their first HFS Plus compatible product.
Mac OS X puts a different signature there than does Mac OS 8/9. And if we ever make any significant changes in the part of the code that handles the on-disk structures, we will probably use yet another signature. Older versions of Disk Doctor complained about the Mac OS X signature, but current versions don't seem to. I don't know whether Disk Doctor now has a list of known signatures, or if they allow any value.
On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 05:42 AM, Pierre Duhem wrote:
Since the spec is so clear, I thought that the author of Norton Disk Doctor would have accepted any value in this slot.
Or at least make it sound less worrisome (a "note" rather than "disk corruption").
The problem is that many users check their media with Norton and whine when it barks. I remember many problems with the bundle bit and with the modification date.
I know what you mean. By all means write up bugs against Disk Doctor if they complain about something they shouldn't. It would certainly be nice if they were clearer about the severity of the inconsistencies they find.
-Mark