[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: initramfs buffer spec -- second draft
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
> > 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.)


> 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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.062 / U:3.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site