From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.197]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.42 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1CgqEm-0000qd-0B for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:04:05 -0500 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 67so6794wri for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:04:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1f9886eb04122112011e89a5f4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:01:35 -0600 From: xemc To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1103632766.6111.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20041217231645.79122.qmail@web52701.mail.yahoo.com> <1103632766.6111.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Rootfs choice ideas Reply-To: xemc List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > And we can modify files freely. > > Yes but you don't _have_ to modify files freely. You can exercise a > little restraint :) Well, perhaps you don't know me too well. =] But you have a good point. > Yes. This is usually done in packages -- by RPM or more usefully on an > embedded system by something smaller like ipkg. Take a look at the > Familiar distribution. Thanks, I will do that. I guess I just haven't thought along those lines. > 'rpm -Vva' > > Not sure if ipkg stores checksums of the installed files. Aha. Well, I'd have to say I've never used rpm before. I usually use Slackware, just starting with Debian (laptop) and Gentoo (x86-64 desktop) > > 3. I could perhaps run into problems when updating it, for > > instance if the update fails part-way through. > > You reattempt the update after you come back up. If I can come back up with a partially failed update. But yes, the same thing can be done that I was proposing, but using packages on a JFFS2 filesystem as well. > Basically it's up to you -- if you can manage to live with a read-only > file system, as presumably you could since you seem to consider > writeability a disadvantage, then you might as well stick with cramfs. Well, I suppose I considered it a disadvantage when I don't need it. My idea was to partition read-only areas (maybe CRAMFS) separately from a read-write area (JFFS2). But there seem to be multiple ways of doing this. Thanks for your feedback. It is appreciated, and I'll mull over it for a bit. Mike