From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750813AbVH0Wip (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:38:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750810AbVH0Wip (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:38:45 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-03-smtplb.rdc-nyc.rr.com ([24.29.109.7]:54691 "EHLO ms-smtp-03.rdc-nyc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751110AbVH0WhB (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:37:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:45:55 +0000 From: Kent Robotti To: Chris Wedgwood Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Initramfs and TMPFS! Message-ID: <20050827224555.GA1731@Linux.nyc.rr.com> Reply-To: dwilson24@nyc.rr.com References: <20050827081918.GA963@Linux.nyc.rr.com> <20050827212817.GA2951@taniwha.stupidest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050827212817.GA2951@taniwha.stupidest.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 02:28:17PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > How about you do a little research on some things for a bit? The > initramfs code is done the way it is for a good reason. cpio is used > over tar for another good reason. Why don't you do some research on manners? > You are most welcome to disagree and even voice you disagreement, but > there comes a point where you really need to produce some better > arguments. Patches wouldn't hurt either. Are you satisfied ass?????