Tim Wood wrote:
Ideally, for me, there'd be a persistance configuration governing
what is
persistant. Examples:
1) User wants to carry their data with them but not install packages
2) Someone wants package persistance
3) Someone wants a way to do custom configuration and then lock it down
So, maybe you can do the following types of things:
* specify paths that are persistant
* specify whether those paths are modifiable (e.g. lock it down)
* specify package persistance
This is actually not as doable for fedora since it uses dm-snapshot overlay
rather than unionfs for its cow magic.
OTOH, it is doable utilizing the alternate persistence method that I just
alluded to in the reply to JvM I just sent. The downside, is that unlike using
dm-snapshot overlay for persistence, implementing what you described would
require more user involvement. I.e. if you go create a file in your homedir,
then yank the plug on the computer, you would lose the file. Unlike with
dm-snapshot-overlay-persistence, in which the file would be there.
Admittedly, I've only given in 2-5 minutes of real thought, but I can't yet
think of any way to provide that fine grain level of control with
dm-snapshot-overlay as the persistence mechanism.
Though honestly I'm the sort of person that would say "hey, lets invite unionfs
back to the party for even more options" :) (though not for fedora8
timeframe... I'm not that crazy ;)
peace...
-dmc
Maybe looking like this ... using a psuedo syntax that just hit me:
[persistant paths]
/home/user(rw)
/etc(r)
[persistant packages]
*
[persistant options]
I guess the config would have to exist as say /etc/persistance.conf and be
part of the persistant archive. Then joe user could go in, and change the
/etc entry to (rw), reboot and then update a config file and then lock it
down again and reboot.
FWIW, this is somewhat similar to something I hacked together for a
customized Knoppix disk.
Timf Wood
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:25:56 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen
<kanarip(a)kanarip.com> wrote:
> Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> Your preferred use case is certainly as valid or even moreso than the
>> one I presented. But having both options seems ideal. Also, there may
>> be an issue with usbflash data, and that in some instances it might be
>> better to have it be mostly preburned as squashfs, rather than treated
>> as a normal ext3fs. I.e. the whole jffs2 thing.
>>
> Well, I'm not against anything here, I'm sorry if it looked that way. It
> just doesn't look like it's worth the effort to me personally.
>
>> Personally I rather like the idea of having my personal core system on
>> read-only media, with just my homedir on flash.
>>
> Right, that makes sense. A home directory from flash would be nice, but
> it wouldn't be really 'system persistence' would it? yum install foo and
> yum remove bar will not have foo and will have bar after a reboot, right?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jeroen van Meeuwen
> -kanarip
>
> --
> Fedora-livecd-list mailing list
> Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com
>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list