Bug#863388: live-boot: Added new functionality to live-boot: rootcopy, modularized filesystems, package installer
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 01:48:05 +0000 William Prochazka wrote:
> Well,
>
> 1. Root copy is not a squashfs filesystem, so it allows for quick
tweaking
> and modification without having to "commit" your changes. This also makes
> modifications (for the purpose of troubleshooting) much easier.
>
> 2. The alternative filesystem module is still a single file. The new
> feature allow for the specification and ordering of filesystem modules.
> For example, imagine the following:
> filesyste A contains all necessary files to boot a system into a basic
> shell with basic functionality, nothing more. Branch filesystem B
contains
> a bunch of advanced tools (coimpilers, scripting environments, etc.
Branch
> filesystem C contains X and Branch Filesystem D contains all of the X
Bloat
> applications.
> Together, all four branches are roughly the size that the one
"monolithic"
> filesystem D would have been if I wanted to use the legacy modules
> directive, but now, I have a boot time option to specify if I want just A
> for a tiny system, (A and B) for more functionality, (A, B, and C) for a
> GUI, or (A, B, C, and D) for all of the bells and whistle. Now I get all
> of that and don't have four copies of the filesystem. Furthermore, if I
> then add a file to A, It will be present when booting into D due to
> squashfs.
>
> It is really nice.
I'm still not getting it. You can accomplish all of these with the
existing module functionality.
Modules don't have to be squashfs files. They can also be regular
directories. You can modify them freely. You can use them in the exact
same way you use overlay directories, because they end up being just
another layer of the overlayfs mount. You can mix and match modules
using *.module files or change their ordering, because they are just
overlays. You can also select different *.module files with boot parameters.
Sorry if I still miss something obvious but this seems to cover all
functionality you've brought so far.
Reply to: