[GSoC] Inquiries regarding manifest format and implementation strategy

[Gao Xiang]

On 2026/3/16 03:34, Sri Lasya Prathipati wrote:
> Hi Gao and the EROFS Community,
> 
> As I am finalizing my GSoC 2026 proposal for the project "Support
> generating filesystems from manifests," I have been researching the
> various manifest formats mentioned in the project ideas.
> 
> To ensure my proposal aligns with the community's vision for
> erofs-utils, I have two specific questions:
> 
> Format Priority: Should the initial focus be on implementing a parser
> for Unix-style proto files (similar to genext2fs), or is there a
> stronger preference for supporting composefs-dump style manifests from
> the start?

I think you could finish `composefs-dump` style first, and then
Unix-style proto files.

As written in the idea page, it should support two formats at
least.

> 
> Integration Path: In mkfs.erofs, do you envision the manifest parser
> acting as a "virtual source" that replaces the standard directory
> crawling logic, or should it coexist as a hybrid approach?

I think it's up to you, the hybird approach won't be hard if you support
the pure "virtual source" one.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> I believe clarifying these points will help me provide a more accurate
> and realistic timeline in my application. I've already begun looking
> into the mkfs source to see where the insertion point for a new input
> frontend would be most efficient.
> 
> Looking forward to your guidance!
> 
> Best regards,
> Sri Lasya prathipati