On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> So if FAT+Minix support is approximately 30K, there is no difference in
> size. What potential problems are caused by using ext2 on
> floppies/ramdisks? Do vfat formatted floppies have a greater amount of
> writable area than ext2 formatted ones? Does Linu
George Metz, 2001-04-21 22:46 -0400
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> > So if FAT+Minix support is approximately 30K, there is no difference
> > in size. What potential problems are caused by using ext2 on
> > floppies/ramdisks? Do vfat formatted floppies have a greater amount of
> > wri
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think the concept is to raise the bar by putting vfat into the
> kernel. If vfat doesn't depend on the msdos code, then omit msdos
> to reduce size and risk of manipulating vfat filenames as msdos
> filenames (which can strand LFN data in the FAT).
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, George Metz wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> > Jack Coates, 2001-04-21 16:08 -0700
> > >I just hunted through my module archives and I've never built it as a
> > >module...
> > >
> > >I also did a google search, but the only ones I turned up in reasonable
George Metz, 2001-04-21 21:34 -0400
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > That's huge. How big is minix? We can subtract the minix size from the
> > ext2 total. Is that correct, or am I out in left field still?
>
>Not sure what you mean. If you mean from kernel size for the total size
>chang
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> Jack Coates, 2001-04-21 16:08 -0700
> >I just hunted through my module archives and I've never built it as a
> >module...
> >
> >I also did a google search, but the only ones I turned up in reasonable
> >timeframe were compiled for NetBSD. Those are 51K (!
Jack Coates, 2001-04-21 16:08 -0700
>I just hunted through my module archives and I've never built it as a
>module...
>
>I also did a google search, but the only ones I turned up in reasonable
>timeframe were compiled for NetBSD. Those are 51K (!).
Jack,
That's huge. How big is minix? We can subt
I just hunted through my module archives and I've never built it as a
module...
I also did a google search, but the only ones I turned up in reasonable
timeframe were compiled for NetBSD. Those are 51K (!).
--
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: It's what's for dinner!
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wro
[EMAIL PROTECTED], 2001-04-21 12:51 -0700
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > You have a better grasp of the details than I do. :)
> > If I have this right, cramfs isn't flexible enough for our needs. That
> > means that Midori isn't useful for a base, and we're back to vfat or
> > minix f
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2001-04-20 18:03 -0700
> >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > > This still doesn't explain why Debian is
> > > trying to do the following for their boot floppies.
> > >
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot-0102/msg00435.html
Jack Coates, 2001-04-21 08:31 -0700
>ext2fs would be handy, but it makes things harder on the Windows users.
>I think vfat is the best thing to do. I use vfat in my kernel -- it's
>15K in 2.2, 16K in 2.4. UPX would turn that into .003 bytes, right :-)
Jack,
It may make things a tad harder, but I
ext2fs would be handy, but it makes things harder on the Windows users.
I think vfat is the best thing to do. I use vfat in my kernel -- it's
15K in 2.2, 16K in 2.4. UPX would turn that into .003 bytes, right :-)
--
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: It's what's for dinner!
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Mike Noy
[EMAIL PROTECTED], 2001-04-20 18:03 -0700
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Mike Noyes wrote:
> > This still doesn't explain why Debian is
> > trying to do the following for their boot floppies.
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot-0102/msg00435.html
> > ~ Build in crams and ramfs. We're going to boot
13 matches
Mail list logo
