Subject: Re: iso-image
To: Christos Zoulas <>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <>
List: current-users
Date: 01/21/2006 15:07:52
In message <dqu27k$47n$>, Christos Zoulas writes:
>In article <>,
>David Young  <> 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, to be used after 
>>> >>'distribution'?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >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.

Agreed.  The offending command -- mkisofs -- is in the existing tree, 
not in this patch.

		--Steven M. Bellovin,