Re: live-boot todo for wheezy
Hi,
Daniel Baumann wrote (04 Jun 2012 16:05:26 GMT) :
> these are iirc the only things that needs to be done before we can
> move current live-boot (and live-config) from experimental to
> unstable:
I'm happy to see we are this close! :)
> * persistency code for overlay and snapshot should be unified so that
> the mode of operation (snapshot and overlay) is deduced by live-boot
> from looking at the live-persistence.conf.
If we drop snapshots, there's nothing to do here. See bellow.
I haven't the big picture in mind right now, so I may be missing
something obvious, but even if we do not drop snapshots, it's unclear
to me why unifying both modes of operation should be a release blocker
for 3.x, given 2.x was happily put out with snapshots and union mounts
implementations that were far from unified. Anyway, we don't need to
spend any more time discussing this any further before we decide
whether we want to drop snapshots.
> tails people, any takers? *puppy eyes*
I don't expect to personally have time to work on live-boot snapshots
in the foreseeable future. (On the happy side of things, I will
probably have time to work on Tails vs. live-build 3.x at DebCamp.)
> * what's the last stance on snapshot, do we want to drop it
> completely?
AFAIK, last thing that happened on this front was a discussion about
relative flash medium wear, by anonym on May 9
<4FAA2D13.6070207@lavabit.com>:
>> I guess where I'm headed with all this is that snapshots seems
>> obsolete to me. In most cases binds are the better choice. Maybe we
>> don't need snapshots any more? Or have I missed some realistic use
>> case where binds actually wear out flash-based storage quicker
>> than snapshots?
This was left unanswered to this day, so I do agree:
let's drop snapshots for the time being.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
Reply to: