Quoting Blaisorblade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
And I think that distributing usable root_fs images would be of great help...
(actually, there are other sources but the site has no link to them - plus I
don't like that much cherry-picking root_fs's from people I don't trust and
putting UML's approval on them - who says there's no trojan there?).
This is a potential problem. However, and even bigger problem is keeping the
exist root_fs's up-to-date. We have far too many ancient images lying around
that would be very insecure if someone booted them on a live network
connection.
Also, it would be nice if we had one location holding clear, concise
guidelines
for what a root_fs should have (not HOW to build it, but WHAT it should or
should not have to be UML "compliant"). For example, I'm still uncertain if
/dev/ubd0 or /dev/ubda is the recommended nomenclature for disk devices. As a
result, I build images with /dev/ubda so I have the flexibility to use
/dev/ubda1 if I need partitions. While minor, this type of detail should be
standardized.
Tony
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-user mailing list
User-mode-linux-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user
