Re: directory structure
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Eric Delaunay <email@example.com> writes:
> > > This is interesting -- would be good to do. I'm not sure symlinks are
> > > safe to use, however. I guess they are -- I think we want to avoid
> > > symlinks for the i386 version, however (since they aren't represented
> > > well in DOS, i.e., for people installing from DOS).
> > Not a problem when using RR extensions but I'm pretty sure they are not seemed
> > under DOS (they appear only in RR records). So we could use hardlinks
> > instead. mkisofs is handling them quite well (no duplicates).
> Well -- you can't hardlink directories, unfortunately.
Hmm, even if directories are not hardlinked to each other, the files they
contain could be. It seems my Debian/SPARC CD is burnt like that (all files
under disks-sparc/126.96.36.199-1999-03-01 & disks-sparc/current are sharing the same
iso9960 inode, so they don't occupy twice the required size).
# du -s /cdrom
# df /cdrom
Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on
/dev/scd0 553552 553552 0 100% /cdrom
596714-553552 = 43162 = approx the size of disks-sparc/current (41713).
It was built using slink-cd and mkisofs with farm symlinks patch.
> Since this is for sparc, it doesn't really matter, does it? I'm
> trying to think of reasonable cases where sparc symlinks would get
> munged by DOS limitations...
Not using symlinks, which are only visible if RockRidge is supported, would
ease a DOS user to get & write its boot disks from the CDROM floppy images.
Eric Delaunay | "La guerre justifie l'existence des militaires.
firstname.lastname@example.org | En les supprimant." Henri Jeanson (1900-1970)