On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> a) Several different formats; <cpio.h> only documents one of them; I
> have only found info on that one so some of these things may not apply.
--format=newc and yes, some of them do not apply
> b) No obvious ways to handle hard links, that doesn't require you
> keeping a table of the inode numbers already seen (at least for which
> c_nlink > 1) and hard link to them on the decompression side. Since we
> have an assymetric setup, it seems like its done at the wrong end.
See below.
> c) The use of TRAILER!!! as an end-of-archive marker (first, it's a
> valid name, and second, there shouldn't be a need for an end-of-archive
> marker in this application as long as each individual file is
> self-terminating thus returning the dearchiver to its ground state. If
> we stick with cpio, I would like these entries to have no effect.
No problem.
> d) c_rdev, c_uid, c_gid, c_dev, and c_ino are too small, at least in the
> <cpio.h> format.
32 bits each (and it's major/minor both for dev and rdev, so in effect it's
64 bits).
> e) The use of octal ASCII numbers is somewhat ugly.
hexadecimal, not octal.
> f) No ctime, no atime.
For populating root?
> It seems to me that this application doesn't really have a particular
> need for backward compatibility, nor for the I/O blocking stuff of
> tar/cpio. I would certainly be willing to write a set of portable
> utilities to create an archive in a custom format, if that would be more
> desirable. We'd still use gzip for compression, of course, and have the
> buffer composed as a combination of ".rfs" and ".rfs.gz" files,
> separated by zero-padding.
>
> What I'm talking about would probably still look a lot like the cpio
> header, but probably would use bigendian binary (bigendian because it
> allows the use of the widely portable htons() and htonl() macros), have
> explicit support for hard links, and not require a trailer block.
As for the hardlinks... I'm not sure. All it takes in uncpio.c is
~30 lines of sparse C.
Trailer block can (and will) be silently ignored by unpacking side.
"TRAILER!!! is a valid name" is true, but hardly serious.
I doubt that extra utilities are worth the effort. Said that, layout
of the damn thing is nowhere near the top of the list of things that
worry me - as long as it's well-defined, can be handled from userland
and can be easily unpacked I'm OK with it. What _does_ worry me, though
* we either need mini-libc of our own or uclibc becomes mandatory
for build (glibc is out of question, dietlibc doesn't support quite a few
architectures we need).
* getting sane Makefile for init/*
* getting rid of /{LINUX,DOS} kludge in UMSDOS (code relies on
ROOT_DEV, which adds a lot of PITA)
* devfs=only needing in effect a search over entire devfs tree (and
yes, that's what it was doing all along)
* RAID autoconf code (seriously entangled with regular parts of
md.c).
Frankly, holy wars over layout of archive look rather pointless. _That_
is trivial to change at any point until the moment when it hits the main
tree. Getting late-boot code clean is the real problem.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 21:00:29 EST