On 12/07/07 13:10 +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
- Jordan Crouse jordan.crouse@amd.com [070712 01:50]:
# MANIFEST # Filename pathname algorithm /root/my.payload normal/payload lzma ... bootblock bootblock -
Do we really need to distinguish between filename and pathname? I don't understand the difference here, unless it's a copy operation instead of an archive. Back when we invented lar, we thought about making all matches via the filename. So I think pathname is an idea to go away from that fixed mapping again...?
Actually - pathname *is* the fixed mapping. The filename:pathname scheme is to bridge the gap between a real world filename (like say, filo.elf), and the mapping within the LAR that LinuxBIOS understands (normal/payload).
I'd rather define file types rather than pathnames?
Or is the pathname such a filetype, and the name is just ambiguous?
Sure - we can use the term filetype if you want. Pathname is a little bit more descriptive, since the LAR can technically hold arbitrary blobs of data - what ever the loader needs ('vsa') comes to mind.
But its just a term - I would be happy to use filetype if thats a better way to think about these things.
Jordan