unionfs, was Re: [Fedora-livecd-list] Kadischi: roadmap from Board meeting ?

[Jane Dogalt]

--- Jeremy Katz <katzj at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 19:05 -0700, Jane Dogalt wrote:
> > --- Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > > The board meeting
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2006-04-07:
> > > 
> > > Live CD (Kadischi) -- Lots of people like the idea of this project,
> > > but there are still some problems to solve. We should empower people
> > ...
> > > It is now the time to discuss and share thoughts about how shall we
> > > boost Kadischi :)
> > 
 
> > 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 far as not being in the kernels, it does build just fine as a module outside
of the kernel.

-jdog




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com