CramFS vs. ISO or other FS

**elmorti** · 12-08-2005, 05:01 PM

Hi everybody, I would like to know it there is some advantages on using the cramfs for the klik images. I've read that cram filesystems doesn't support uid/gid (that could be an "advantage" I think) and it's limited to 256 mb per filesystem. In the other hand, someone could use other filesystems like the compressed ISO, which doesn't have that limitations. I'm using compressed ISO for the images but I would like to know if i'm wrong or even if someone knows of a better filesystem to use.

By the way, are klik developers aiming to get some kind of AppDir support directly avoiding the use of images? Does someone have any clue on how to make AppDirs run on the system? I've seen the probono patch on KDE but seems that it needs more work.

Thanks!

PD: I'm having good results with compressed ISO images.

**probono** · 12-09-2005, 05:50 PM

Compressed ISO files are larger than cramfs files for most applications. On the other hand, cramfs cannot handle files >16 MB. So klik uses both, depending on the kind of application that is packaged.

There is CPX-Mini, Kanotix-based live CD, which natively supports AppDirs. klik generates AppDirs there instead of cmg files. But in general, I would consider cmg files by far superior to AppDirs. ("1 app = 1 file" philosophy)

Greetings,
probono