Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Gerardo Narvaja wrote: >> Has anyone taken a look at 'cloop' as an alternative to 'squashfs'? >> If yes, were there any cons or pros? >> If no, would it be useful if I give it a shot? > > 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.
cloop README file contains: > Make sure you have enough swap to hold the entire compressed image in > virtual memory! For me, this means the need to add nonzero amount of swap. -1. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
