![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Jan 15, 2002 21:16 +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On January 15, 2002 09:03 pm, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > Encoding the numeric fields in ASCII/hex is a goofy wart on an otherwise > > > nice design. What is the compelling reason? Bytesex isn't it: we > > > should just pick one or the other and stick with it as we do in Ext2. > > > > > > Why don't we fix cpio to write a consistent bytesex? > > > > Because we want to use existing tools. > > It's a mistake not to fix this tool. I'll post the cost in terms of bytes > wasted shortly, pretty tough to argue with that, right? Well, I doubt the difference will be more than a few bytes, if you compare the cpio archive sizes after compression with gzip. > > I don't think think this application alone is enough to add Yet Another > > Version of CPIO. However, if there are more compelling reasons to do so > > for CPIO backup reasons itself I guess we could write it up and add it > > to GNU cpio as "linux" format... > > Oh, it is, really it is. It's not just any application, and GNU already > has its own verion of cpio. But then every person who wants to build a kernel will have to have the patched version of cpio until such a time it is part of the standard cpio tool (which may be "never"). I would much rather use the currently available tools than save 20 bytes off a 900kB kernel image. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 11:18 [W:0.319 / U:0.240 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||