Re: unionfs, was Re: [Fedora-livecd-list] Kadischi: roadmap from Board meeting ?
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 17:04 -0700, Jane Dogalt wrote:
--- Jeremy Katz <katzj(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 19:05 -0700, Jane Dogalt wrote:
> > 2) unionfs via initramfs (forget read-only root)
>
> Since unionfs isn't in the Fedora kernels, it's not really something we
> can count on right now. And there are significant concerns about it
> from some of our kernel developers that are likely to keep it from being
> a good option.
Can you enumerate at least a couple of those concerns? I see huge advantages,
which have caused several livecd projects to already utilize it. I don't mind
kadischi opting not to use unionfs, but I would like to know why.
As Bill said, deadlocks and crashiness are the big reasons.
As far as not being in the kernels, it does build just fine as a
module outside
of the kernel.
Sure, but depending on a module outside of the core kernel for the base
system is the path to madness. It will never actually be sanely kept
updated for the extremely fast pace of kernel updates in Fedora and thus
will just be broken far more often than not.
Jeremy