Re: On persistency in newer live-boot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 04/09/2012 04:58 PM, anonym wrote:
> Implemented in commit f92f379, pushed to debian-next.
brilliant, thanks so much.
>> * it's kind of ugly to always have a /live.persist in the root of
>> the overlay partition. that could be workarounded by
>> allowing/requireing to use /.live.persist instead (which works on
>> fat/ntfs too, not just on the unix/unix-like fs'es).
>
> An alternative solution (which currently works) is for the user to
> use an option like: source=some_subdir
true; personally, i don't really care about that much (the cosmetic
problem of existence of that file). let's leave it then as is at the
moment.
>> * in the full persistency case, a simple mkfs -L full-ov would
>> not be enough, it would be a two step process to also create the
>> config file. personally, that wouldn't bother me.
>
> Well, the same already applies for /home.
for any non-full persistency, yes.
>> if we'd do that, we could, fs label wise, get away with 'overlay'
>> and 'snapshot', both being below 11 characters, so no fallbacks
>> for legacy fs'es/os'es would be needed.
>
> Perhaps 'live' is good enough as a new label? I leave the naming to
> you.
live is a bit too generic, in particular since probably the rootfs
might have such a label in some setups.
if we, as you impled, can unify the code so that snapshot and overlay
is being deduced by live-boot from looking at the config file, then,
we could use one label only. i suggest that to be 'persistence' (which
coincidentally is exactely 11 characters :).
Regards,
Daniel
- --
Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email: daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk+C/C0ACgkQ+C5cwEsrK57EigCZASdjADJrjCxGIvnYOOi8YSiK
B5UAnjTEhLcEuTfQyC+7Nb5XCQBjzxxx
=equF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: