This decision was made back in December, 2001. The discussion started here:
- http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0112.2/1538.html
+- https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/a03cke$640$1@cesium.transmeta.com/
And spawned a second thread (specifically on tar vs cpio), starting here:
- http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0112.2/1587.html
+- https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3C25A06D.7030408@zytor.com/
The quick and dirty summary version (which is no substitute for reading
the above threads) is:
either way about the archive format, and there are alternative tools,
such as:
- http://freecode.com/projects/afio
+ https://linux.die.net/man/1/afio
2) The cpio archive format chosen by the kernel is simpler and cleaner (and
thus easier to create and parse) than any of the (literally dozens of)
5) Al Viro made the decision (quote: "tar is ugly as hell and not going to be
supported on the kernel side"):
- http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0112.2/1540.html
+ - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Pine.GSO.4.21.0112222109050.21702-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu/
explained his reasoning:
- - http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0112.2/1550.html
- - http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0112.2/1638.html
+ - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Pine.GSO.4.21.0112222240530.21702-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu/
+ - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Pine.GSO.4.21.0112230849550.23300-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu/
and, most importantly, designed and implemented the initramfs code.