[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#697873: live-boot: Easy fix for broken persistence-label parameter



On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net> wrote:
severity 697873 normal
thanks

On 01/10/2013 10:24 AM, Mike Gach wrote:
[...] with the file name 'persistence'. If I use persistence-label=xyz and make a file named 'persistence-xyz' [...] when the system is rebooted, the system will not be using either persistence file.

why not use 'persistence-label=persistence-xyz then?

the idea is to not enforce a naming scheme here upon the user.


 Thank you for the reply. Yes, I agree that more flexible is preferred.


I’m sorry I should have mentioned that I also had a persistence file with the name ‘xyz’, but that did not work either. I believe because all three variables (old_live_overlay_label, old_home_overlay_label, custome_persistence_label) all get assigned the same thing, so three identical loop mounts are brought up during the search and something goes wrong there (I couldn’t follow the debug much farther than that).


You have given me a better more flexible idea. Let me purpose this fixed code:

        persistence-label=*)

                custom_overlay_label="${_PARAMETER#persistence-label=*}"

                ;;


Simply remove the 'old_..._label' assignments so they keep their initialized values (live-rw and home-rw). custom_overlay_label is now the variable used to look for both new custom labeled persistence files and legacy custom labeled persistence files. (legacy users will have to understand how to add live-persistence.conf to their file, but I think that is reasonable).


I made the change (on a Wheezy 7.0~b4 live-boot 3.0~a35 build) and tried the following persistence files using the full file name for the parameter persistence-label=


persistence-xyz

live-rw-xyz

xyz-v3.2


Each of the three booted with persistence enabled as expected. After looking at the code, this should fix 3.0~b11-1 also, but I have not tested it.


--
--
M Gach
Reply to: