Your message dated Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:21:44 +0300
with message-id <4cfe9758.4040...@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
and subject line Re: Bug#497914: [busybox] busybox mount command refuse to
mount with "-t auto" and "-t squashfs"
has caused the Debian Bug report #497914,
regardi
Package: live-installer
Severity: wishlist
should support partial squashfs, see man live-boot /module.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baum...@panthera-systems.net
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann
same, but ... ??
If I type:
busybox mount -t auto /dev/hdc /mountpoint
busybox mount /dev/hdc/ /mountpoint
busybox mount -r -t squashfs -o loop /image.squashfs /mountpoint
In all cases, mount works without any problem, so I simply edit some of my
initrd scripts in order to make it work.
If you see
Hi,
Can you try to reproduce this with busybox trunk and the
busybox_1_11_stable branch?
Random additional notes:
- loop needs a configuration option turned on:
$ grep MOUNT_LOOP .config
CONFIG_FEATURE_MOUNT_LOOP=y
- -t auto
As far as i know offhand, there is not fstype "auto" as in
$ gr
nt -r -t iso9660 /dev/hdc /mnt), and it works perfectly.
The other problem (i'm not sure if there is this is related to the first one),
is that I'm not able to mount squash filesystem ( it seems to be same problem
as 475783, but i'm not using live-initramfs package ). In this case,
On Monday 18 June 2007 22:22, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Affected packages:
> - kernel-wedge
> - linux-modules-di-alpha-2.6
> - linux-modules-di-amd64-2.6
> - linux-modules-di-arm-2.6
> - linux-modules-di-armel-2.6
> - linux-modules-di-hppa-2.6
> - linux-modules-di-i386-2.6
> - linux-modules-
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 20:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The squashfs modules packages are built as part of
>> linux-modules-extra-2.6.
>
> Yes, I became aware of that later. This is somewhat painful as history has
> shown iss
On Monday 18 June 2007 20:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The squashfs modules packages are built as part of
> linux-modules-extra-2.6.
Yes, I became aware of that later. This is somewhat painful as history has
shown issues and delays with uploads of that package which would affect
our abil
me comments.
>
>> - We will need a hard commitment from the squashfs-modules maintainer that
>> he will be prompt about uploading new versions when there are new kernel
>> uploads with either a new kernel major/minor change or an ABI change.
>
> The squashfs modules packag
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:07:45PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 15:48, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > From: Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This patch is not really a problem, but some comments.
> - We will need a hard commitment from the squashfs-mo
linux-modules-di-m68k-2.6
- linux-modules-di-mips-2.6
- linux-modules-di-mipsel-2.6
- linux-modules-di-powerpc-2.6
- linux-modules-di-s390-2.6
- linux-modules-di-sparc-2.6
---
packages/kernel/kernel-wedge/debian/changelog |5 -
.../kernel/kernel-wedge/modules/squashfs-modules
On Monday 18 June 2007 22:20, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> No, it shouldn't depends of the source since it uses the binary
> module. It just copy it and in this case it needs to build-depends of
> the binary package. Not the source.
>
> Am I missing anything?
No, I was not thinking straight. Sorry.
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 21:45, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> it. Daniel is the linux-modules-extra-2.6 maintainer and he's commited
> ^^^
>
> In that case the patch is wrong as the kernel-versions files need to list
> the
On Monday 18 June 2007 21:45, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> it. Daniel is the linux-modules-extra-2.6 maintainer and he's commited
^^^
In that case the patch is wrong as the kernel-versions files need to list
the _source_ package, not the binary package. After a
cuse...
No problem. I already updated the patch at my git branch and once we
get squashfs reply I'll commit it.
--
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Frans,
I'm adding Arnaud that's the squashfs maintainer.
> On Monday 18 June 2007 15:48, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> From: Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This patch is not really a problem, but some comments.
On Monday 18 June 2007 15:48, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> From: Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch is not really a problem, but some comments.
- We will need a hard commitment from the squashfs-modules maintainer that
he will be prompt about uploading new versions when ther
odules/alpha/squashfs-modules |1 +
.../kernel/linux-modules-di-alpha-2.6/package-list |6 ++
.../linux-modules-di-amd64-2.6/debian/changelog|6 ++
.../linux-modules-di-amd64-2.6/kernel-versions |2 +-
.../modules/amd64/squashfs-modules
odules/alpha/squashfs-modules |1 +
.../linux-modules-di-amd64-2.6/debian/changelog|6 ++
.../linux-modules-di-amd64-2.6/kernel-versions |2 +-
.../modules/amd64/squashfs-modules |1 +
.../linux-modules-di-arm-2.6/debian/changelog
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:24:49PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
...
> > Where would I file a wishlist bug to get squashfs included in
> > kernel-images? It's value is discussed in
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2003/d
Glenn McGrath wrote:
The comparisons to cramfs does favour squashfs for lowmem installs.
My only reservation is the fact that its not in the official kernel, but
it sounds like you intend to stick it out and maintain it outside the
offical tree, so that shouldnt be too much of a problem.
Yes. I
The comparisons to cramfs does favour squashfs for lowmem installs.
My only reservation is the fact that its not in the official kernel, but
it sounds like you intend to stick it out and maintain it outside the
offical tree, so that shouldnt be too much of a problem.
Glenn
--
To
ably
contain files from the same directory or directory tree - this helps
to reduce fragmentation, and works on the assumption that files in the
same directory will be accessed together.
Romfs and squashfs compact the filesystem, and write the files to disk
in the order that the source directo
On Thu Feb 20, 2003 at 12:39:14PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> It's interesting to note that in this case -8 and -9 yield the same
> results, but -9 requires more memory at the time of decompression and
> compression. I suspect the memory usage statistics will remain constant
> for any file (
sizes). I don't know how one could change the order of files in an initrd
file, but I suspect it's like tar, just pass them in a different order.
The order of files would make no difference if files are compressed
independently like squashfs does.
Phillip Lougher:
I'm also not subscri
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:08:45 -0600 (CST)
> Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Would squashfs work? I doubt this is an optimal compression, but it
> > might be better than alternatives. Currently the best
Glenn McGrath wrote:
Im not confident about squashfs, i think the best solution is
initrd.romfs.gz for normal installs, but squashfs or cramfs might be
good for lowmem installs, i havent looked into squashfs yet, not sure
when i will get time.
Hi,
I'm pleased that people (thank you Drew
On Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 05:16:48PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:08:45 -0600 (CST)
> Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Would squashfs work? I doubt this is an optimal compression, but it
> > might be better than alternativ
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:08:45 -0600 (CST)
Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would squashfs work? I doubt this is an optimal compression, but it
> might be better than alternatives. Currently the best free solution
> might be based on PPMd which has been packaged into
I will.
>
>The reason gzip compression is used on intrd's is becasue the kernel and
>some bootloaders (grub at least) support it.
>
Would squashfs work? I doubt this is an optimal compression, but it might
be better than alternatives. Currently the best free solution might be
based on
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 01:17:58AM +, Kenneth MacDonald wrote:
> Glenn> The reason gzip compression is used on intrd's is becasue
> Glenn> the kernel and some bootloaders (grub at least) support it.
>
> Glenn> It would be great is we could use better compression on the
> Glenn
> "Glenn" == Glenn McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Glenn> On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:27:59 -0600 (CST)
Glenn> Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It looks stable enough now, but I wonder why it hasn't been
>> included in the Linux kernel (even 2.5?). I also have to
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:27:59 -0600 (CST)
Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks stable enough now, but I wonder why it hasn't been included
> in the Linux kernel (even 2.5?). I also have to question the value of
> zlib compression vs other types of compression, but then I suppose
I've been meaning to file an RFP on squashfs for a while, and I finally
got around to it ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=179672
). While I was at it, I figured I might ask if this filesystem has been
looked at for use in any debian media. I know there has recently been
34 matches
Mail list logo
