On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 19:23 +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 08:03:16PM +0200, Darko Ilic wrote: > > > Well, having unionfs included in the kernel would be *great* for live CDs. > > > > > > If we could push both unionfs and SquashFS to go upstream, that would improve > > > the quality of live CDs dramatically. > > > > To have unionfs and squashfs upstream would be nice, yes. But they can > > be used regardless of being upstream or not. > > Not for an official Fedora Live CD. One aspect is that it *must* be > built using components distributed as part of Fedora and we're > (generally speaking) against patches which aren't upstream because they > significantly raise the maintenance burden and then also get people > complaining because the kernel isn't "stock" I was thinking of adding the source of the modules to the "official fedora livecd maker". The _binary_ rpm would have the sources. Thus, no need for kernel patches or any unionfs/squashfs package at all. The fedora livecd build process will compile the modules on livecd creation, using the kernel-dev package for the kernel to be used by the livecd. As the livecd system won't be updated anyway, there isn't even a need of keeping any unionfs/squashfs package at the same level of the kernel package. I'd be rather happy to see unionfs and squashfs packages in extras, and I even volunteer myself to maintain them. But I still see no need to have them as packages before they can be used, officially, as part of a livecd system. Regards, Luciano Rocha -- lfr 0/0 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
