On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 00:14:20 +0200
"Thomas Schmitt" wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Glenn Washburn wrote:
> > I think the changes to get the test
> > working are worthy of inclusion so that the tests are ready when
> > this feature gets implemented.
>
> Do you think my draft of a commit message is ok ?
Hi.
Glenn Washburn wrote:
> I think the changes to get the test
> working are worthy of inclusion so that the tests are ready when this
> feature gets implemented.
Do you think my draft of a commit message is ok ?
Probably i should mention that this test will fail until zisofs is
implemented.
On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 22:07:29 +0200
"Thomas Schmitt" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i managed to get the ziso9660 test running with actual compression.
>
> ./grub-fs-tester ziso9660
>
> now produces an ISO image but seems not to be happy with it.
>
> If i get it right then it sees the compressed size
Hi,
i managed to get the ziso9660 test running with actual compression.
./grub-fs-tester ziso9660
now produces an ISO image but seems not to be happy with it.
If i get it right then it sees the compressed size 1124519 of file "1.img"
but expects its uncompressed size 5242879.
Linux mount
Hi,
Glenn Washburn wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, there is currently no test which actually
> exercises that code, ie no test runs "grub-fs-tester ziso9660". I think
> it could be a good idea to have one though.
So we should get this to work. zisofs can be helpful to squeeze more
operating system
On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:29:48 +0200
"Thomas Schmitt" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the xorriso run for testing zisofs in
>
> tests/util/grub-fs-tester.in
>
> looks not like it would cause any zisofs compression in the ISO.
>
> Line 1024:
>
> xorriso -compliance rec_mtime -set_filter_r --zisofs --
Hi,
the xorriso run for testing zisofs in
tests/util/grub-fs-tester.in
looks not like it would cause any zisofs compression in the ISO.
Line 1024:
xorriso -compliance rec_mtime -set_filter_r --zisofs -- -zisofs default
-as mkisofs ... some options ... --
