On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 15:12 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: > severity 573189 important > thanks > > Hi, > > as we discussed last time, unionfs-fuse is not acceptable. > > until unionmount is available in upstream, the debian kernels need to > have aufs2. > > either, the kernel team is going to keep applying the aufs2 patches for > the kernel >=2.6.32, or, we need aufs oot modules back in the archive. > > If your intention is to no longer include aufs2 within the debian kernel > images itself (which i'm quite surpised, because it was clearly said > when linux-modules-extra-2.6 were dropped, that aufs will be included in > the kernel until unionmount is available, I don't believe anyone made such a promise. However, if you are going to continue making interim snapshots of Debian Live and if aufs2 is going to be updated to work with upstream kernel releases then we can continue including it for a while. Please do whatever you can to aid in development of union mounts as a replacement. [...] > this is quite upsetting. Sorry about that. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part