Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: initramfs buffer spec -- second draft | Date | Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:16:32 +0100 |
| |
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?
> It's a wart, but not compelling > enough of one to rewrite the tools from scratch.
Why would you rewrite from scratch?
> (I would also change > the EOA marker from "TRAILER!!!" to "" since a null filename would not > interfere with the namespace.)
Yes!
> 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.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |