Re: pseudo-image-kit-2.0

2001-09-24 Thread Richard Atterer
On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:11:01PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > I find the pseudo-image-kit-2.0 process overly complicated and > difficult to use, even for an experienced unix administrator. That's very true. > If I were to write a better drop-in replacement, would it be &g

Re: pseudo-image-kit-2.0

2001-09-24 Thread Richard Atterer
On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 09:11:01PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > I find the pseudo-image-kit-2.0 process overly complicated and > difficult to use, even for an experienced unix administrator. That's very true. > If I were to write a better drop-in replacement, would it be &g

pseudo-image-kit-2.0

2001-09-23 Thread Blars Blarson
I find the pseudo-image-kit-2.0 process overly complicated and difficult to use, even for an experienced unix administrator. The .tar.gz also includes a static-linked i386 binary in the "unix/linux" version -- usless on many unix systems. (Since the binary isn't needed for creatin

pseudo-image-kit-2.0

2001-09-23 Thread Blars Blarson
I find the pseudo-image-kit-2.0 process overly complicated and difficult to use, even for an experienced unix administrator. The .tar.gz also includes a static-linked i386 binary in the "unix/linux" version -- usless on many unix systems. (Since the binary isn't needed for