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

Bug#612913: marked as done (support for unionfs-fuse)

Your message dated Thu, 03 Jan 2013 18:37:19 +0100
with message-id <50E5C1CF.2070005@progress-technologies.net>
and subject line Re: support for unionfs-fuse
has caused the Debian Bug report #612913,
regarding support for unionfs-fuse
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
612913: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=612913
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: live-boot
Version: 3.0~a14-1+git
Severity: normal


I was testing my changes to l-b and found that unionfs-fuse is broken to
start with.

The live script tries to raise the number of available file descriptors
for unionfs-fuse which is a bashism as reported by the package build
scripts and does not work but the live script continues anyway.

with break=bottom or break=init I see fully functional system in /root
However, initscripts complain about readonly filesystem and fail.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (990, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-2-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- given that in the last couple of years the situation with having aufs modules for the current kernels has de-escalated (due to inclusion of aufs in the main linux kernel packages within debian, rather than oot-modules), the main reason to support unionfs-fuse within live-boot is no longer necessary (to have a proper 'fallback' in place when aufs support for the kernel is not yet available).
also given that unionfs-fuse offers no other advantage over aufs, but in fact has several disadvantages (most prominently, it's dead slow), i do not see any reason to work on having unionfs-fuse support in live-boot myself. however, as it's always desirable to support as many use cases as possible, if you provide patches to make it work, we'll happily apply them.
in the meanwhile, i'm closing this bug, feel free to reopen with patches at any time. 

--
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

--- End Message ---
Reply to: