Re: initramfs buffer spec -- second draft

[Daniel Phillips]

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