Subject: Re: build.sh iso-image
To: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/21/2006 15:07:52
In message <email@example.com>, Christos Zoulas writes:
>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.
Agreed. The offending command -- mkisofs -- is in the existing tree,
not in this patch.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb