Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 19:05 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Sean Godsell wrote:
I don't know why fedora didn't
take the time to use squashfs+lzma, but it is worth it. I hope they put
it in the next release.
Most likely because it doesn't appear to be included in the upstream
Alan Pevec wrote:
So the issue is how can we help squashfs first and then lzma get
accepted upstream.
What's the history here, did it ever get submitted and then shoot down
for valid reasons?
Around 2007 august or so, Phillip Lougher cited several reasons for not
merging this patch in this
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Around 2007 august or so, Phillip Lougher cited several reasons for not
merging this patch in this list IIRC. Might want to look up the archives.
I couldn't find squashfs/lzma upstream status in the archives of this list, but
markmc pointed me to
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 19:05 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Sean Godsell wrote:
I don't know why fedora didn't
take the time to use squashfs+lzma, but it is worth it. I hope they put
it in the next release.
Most likely because it doesn't appear to be included in the upstream kernel.
When/if
Sean Godsell wrote:
With the exact same fedora image. I was able to save almost 110
megabytes. Wow, what a savings.
no doubt.
I don't know why fedora didn't
take the time to use squashfs+lzma, but it is worth it. I hope they put
it in the next release.
Most likely because it doesn't
