From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422630AbXDCSl7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:41:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422639AbXDCSl7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:41:59 -0400 Received: from crown.reflexsecurity.com ([72.54.139.163]:59297 "EHLO crown.reflexsecurity.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422630AbXDCSl6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:41:58 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 2430 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:41:58 EDT X-Reflex-Keepalives: . Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:01:06 -0400 From: Jason Lunz To: roland Cc: Jeff Dike , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [RFC] UML kernel & rootfs bundle with every kernel release ? Message-ID: <20070403180105.GA5410@metaxa.reflex> References: <023901c775ca$1608d670$eeeea8c0@aldipc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <023901c775ca$1608d670$eeeea8c0@aldipc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:28:40AM +0200, roland wrote: > what is the real advantage to package uml-kernel and rootfs into a single > file ? > > If this needs to be distributed with additional script, that's two files, > anyway. If a common means of doing this were widespread, the script would be distributed separately (probably with the uml utilities). Analagous to the way bootloaders are separate from linux on real hardware. That way, the distributor of a virtual machine would only distribute that single system image. The user would boot it using the script according to his own host environment. Jason