Hi,
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 10:48 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Does pilgrim make an attempt to integrate any of stateless's work? In
> my mind integrating stateless with livecd creation just makes sense.
> But I don't think there's been much work done on that front since
> Jeremy's proof of concept fork of kadischi which I don't think he's been
> updating.
Nope, I think it's much more elegant to just use dm-snapshot to provide
a real rw rootfs. Not sure what Bill Nottingham (Cc'ed) or people
working on stateless team thinks of this, they might have a number of
good reasons that I haven't thought out. I still think stateless makes
sense for non-livecd work however.
Btw, If someone could talk davej into including unionfs into the Fedora
kernel, we'd use that instead of dm-snapshot and we'd have persistence
more easily solved [1].
David
[1] : we can already do this for our livecd but it will be tied to the
specific build you're using, e.g. in practice it's tied to the physical
media you created it with.
With unionfs things might look much better and we'd easily be able to do
a harddisk install of "livecd + your changes made" instead of harddisk
install becomes contents of "stock livecd", ie. without your changes.
That said, I'm not sure that this really matters in real life.
--
Fedora-desktop-list mailing list
Fedora-desktop-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
