On 12/07/07 13:10 +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> * Jordan Crouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070712 01:50]:
> > --------------------------------------------
> > # MANIFEST
> > # Filename pathname algorithm
> > /root/my.payload normal/payload lzma
> > ...
> > bootblock bootblock -
>
> Do we really need to distinguish between filename and pathname? I don't
> understand the difference here, unless it's a copy operation instead of
> an archive. Back when we invented lar, we thought about making all
> matches via the filename. So I think pathname is an idea to go away from
> that fixed mapping again...?
Actually - pathname *is* the fixed mapping. The filename:pathname scheme
is to bridge the gap between a real world filename (like say, filo.elf),
and the mapping within the LAR that LinuxBIOS understands (normal/payload).
> I'd rather define file types rather than pathnames?
>
> Or is the pathname such a filetype, and the name is just ambiguous?
Sure - we can use the term filetype if you want. Pathname is a little
bit more descriptive, since the LAR can technically hold arbitrary blobs
of data - what ever the loader needs ('vsa') comes to mind.
But its just a term - I would be happy to use filetype if thats a better
way to think about these things.
Jordan
--
Jordan Crouse
Systems Software Development Engineer
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
--
linuxbios mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
