At 03:44 PM 1/19/01 -0600, David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 19 Jan 2001, at 20:16, Scott C. Best wrote:
>
>[Someone said:]
> > > I found an early back-port of cramfs. Still no luck with ramfs.
> > > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0011.0/1019.html
> > >
> > > Are these f
Mike,
Here is the referenced README.
>>I think the information on ramfs is in that directory too.
>
>I didn't see it.
The inode.c file for ramfs was all I could find.
/*
* Resizable simple ram filesystem for Linux.
*
* Copyright (C) 2000 Linus Torvalds.
* 2000 Transmeta Co
>There is supposed to be some documentation in the 2.4 kernel tarball.
>linux/Documentation/filesystems/cramfs.txt
Here is the file.
>I think the information on ramfs is in that directory too.
I didn't see it.
linux/Documentation/filesystems# ls
00-INDEX adfs.txt bfs.txt cramfs.txt ext2
At 03:44 PM 1/19/01 -0600, David Douthitt < wrote:
>On 19 Jan 2001, at 20:16, Scott C. Best wrote:
> > So...can someone relate the quantitive advantages of cramfs or
> > ramfs for me? Filesize savings, glib compatibility, etc.
>
>I must be WAY behind the curve on this one :-(
>
>What is ramfs?
On 19 Jan 2001, at 20:16, Scott C. Best wrote:
[Someone said:]
> > I found an early back-port of cramfs. Still no luck with ramfs.
> > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0011.0/1019.html
> >
> > Are these file systems useful for a 2.2 system, or should we just try to
> > use them on
Let me take this moment to become the least informed
person on the list...
> >>It says that cramfs can be back-ported to 2.2 kernels, but it doesn't say
> >>if it's possible to back-port ramfs. Do you know if it's possible to
> >>back-port ramfs?
> >
> >I don't know. My guess is not at
At 06:13 PM 12/15/00 -0800, Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Everyone,
>Get used to the new header fields. They are not going away. It's a new RFC
>compliant feature of Mailman 2.0. Eudora users are the ones that will have
>the most trouble with this. Eudora doesn't make it easy to turn th
At 09:22 AM 1/19/01 -0800, Mike Sensney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 08:39 AM 01/19/2001 -0800, Mike Noyes wrote:
>>At 08:33 AM 1/19/01 -0800, Mike Sensney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>At 08:48 AM 01/18/2001 -0800, Mike Noyes wrote:
I just received issue 01 of elj yesterday. It has an artic
At 08:39 AM 01/19/2001 -0800, Mike Noyes wrote:
>At 08:33 AM 1/19/01 -0800, Mike Sensney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>At 08:48 AM 01/18/2001 -0800, Mike Noyes wrote:
>>>I just received issue 01 of elj yesterday. It has an article that
>>>mentions an embedded OS (Mobile Linux) created by Linus. Th
Another reference to cramfs and ramfs:
http://www.handhelds.org/minihowto/filesystems.html
And source files:
http://linux.mirrors.nks.net/ftp.handhelds.org/linux/compaq/ipaq/v0.15/
At 08:33 AM 01/19/2001 -0800, Mike Sensney wrote:
>At 08:48 AM 01/18/2001 -0800, Mike Noyes wrote:
>>I just received
At 08:33 AM 1/19/01 -0800, Mike Sensney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 08:48 AM 01/18/2001 -0800, Mike Noyes wrote:
>>I just received issue 01 of elj yesterday. It has an article that
>>mentions an embedded OS (Mobile Linux) created by Linus. The interesting
>>part (quoted below) IMO is cramfs a
At 10:06 AM 1/19/01 -0600, "David Douthitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I just wanted to say - having seen several SourceForge sites, I
>would say that the LEAF page is one of the few well documented
>pages, with LOTS of documentation. Let's give everyone a pat on
>the back, especially the writer
At 08:48 AM 01/18/2001 -0800, Mike Noyes wrote:
>I just received issue 01 of elj yesterday. It has an article that mentions
>an embedded OS (Mobile Linux) created by Linus. The interesting part
>(quoted below) IMO is cramfs and ramfs. Has anyone seen the source for
>either of these file systems
At 04:50 PM 1/18/01 -0800, "Scott C. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike:
> Heya...
>
> > What about this? I don't know how hard it would be to port Dave
> > C.'s patches to ARM though.
> >
> > Debian/ARM runs on LART...[snip]
>
> Gives me with willies walking away from x86 for
I just wanted to say - having seen several SourceForge sites, I
would say that the LEAF page is one of the few well documented
pages, with LOTS of documentation. Let's give everyone a pat on
the back, especially the writers and compilers - and especially
Chief SourceForge Guru :) Mike Noyes!
At 07:36 AM 1/19/01 -0600, David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Should I add the MIT/X License to the project licenses?
David,
I don't have any objections to that as long as the GPL is also there.
--
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/
Should I add the MIT/X License to the project licenses?
--
David Douthitt
UNIX Systems Administrator
HP-UX, Linux, Unixware
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
17 matches
Mail list logo
