Is there something particularly wrong with squashfs? I would think that if we were to change at all, we should probably go to cramfs which is now included in the linux kernel. Squashfs was originally chosen because at the time of the first livecd, cloop wasn't building correctly with linux-2.6.8.1, and squashfs seemed to provide better compression.
Lay out any pros and cons first, please, and then I could give you a better answer with regards to using cloop. As things stand right now, I see no need to change.
Sorry if this sounded harsh - I realize you were just asking if cloop had been considered. Please feel free to investigate the differences between cloop and squashfs, and if you find anything worth noting, let us know here. We're a small team here, and any efforts to help are appreciated.
Thanks,
-- Jeremy Huntwork -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
