Re: live-boot todo for wheezy
On 06/05/2012 07:47 PM, intrigeri wrote:
> if we do not drop snapshots, it's unclear
> to me why unifying both modes of operation should be a release blocker
the unification is not the blocker per se, but not having the 'final' fs
label is, as it would require to keep compatibility and making us need
to support this 'intermediate' state until wheezy+1 which i obviously
want to avoid.
now that persistency is done properly, i'd like to use 'persistence' as
the fs label for any persistency mode (be it partition, custom, or else;
and the mode being defined by the config file in it). that's the last
state of the discussion we had some time ago.
> On the happy side of things, I will
> probably have time to work on Tails vs. live-build 3.x at DebCamp.
great, looking forward to that.
> 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>:
ack, and agreed on everything anonym said.
> let's drop snapshots for the time being.
eventhough i don't see much merits in snapshots since we're having
custom mounts in place now, i wouldn't per se be against having a
seconday persistence mode in the code. however, since nobody showed
initiative of updating the snapshot code for that, i'm for dropping it too.
i'll look into that later today and upload to experimental, it would be
nice if you and anonym could then give some feedback/testing whetever i
haven't broken it too much :)
--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email: daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/
Reply to: