From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fish.redhat.com ([213.86.99.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 190irL-0005Q0-Cf for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 15:04:59 +0100 From: David Woodhouse To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel In-Reply-To: <20030402140304.GA752@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <002201c2f91d$8c6ff330$1200a8c0@JOHNB> <1049291095.2652.2.camel@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> <20030402140304.GA752@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <1049292292.2652.4.camel@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 02 Apr 2003 15:04:53 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org cc: John Burch Subject: Re: reach of jffs2 within image vs. partition List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 15:03, Jörn Engel wrote: > In my experience, better always use images of the same size as the > partition. > > You don't *have* to, but then some will figure out how to not erase > the partition, write the image to it, remount the partition and find > some old data in the filesystem that was supposed to be erased. > > Give people the option to shoot themselves in the foot and eventually > someone will do it - and blame you. ;) Oh yeah, that too -- good point :) -- dwmw2