Subject: Re: build.sh iso-image
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
Date: 01/21/2006 19:32:04
In article <20060121172102.GM22428@che.ojctech.com>,
David Young <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:49:17PM +0000, Gavan Fantom wrote:
>> Alan Barrett wrote:
>> >On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>> >>That's good to know and I'll flag your note so I can find it easily in
>> >>the future. That said, I'll repeat my original suggestion: is there
>> >>any reason it shouldn't be a target in build.sh, to be used after
>> >You could try this patch, which has been in my private tree for
>> >some time. Sorry there's no update to BUILDING.
>> This looks like it would be worth committing. Is there any reason not to
>> commit it?
>I don't think it should be committed until the iso-image target uses
>host tools---i.e., uses makefs instead of mkisofs.
I don't think it hurts, and it is a step in the right direction. I.e. it
will incentivise people to make it use host tools.