Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>> It still uses unionfs
>
> In the LFS-6.1 era, the official LFS LiveCD was based on unionfs.
> However, this filesystem was buggy and oopsy then (i.e.: corrupted
> memory), and incompatible with linux-2.6.16, that's why it has been
> replaced with a device-mapper based solution just before LFS-6.2.
> Unionfs developers probably made some progress since then, but I didn't
> retest it, because device-mapper works just fine. But in LFS-6.2 era, I
> would tell everyone to stay away from such solution.
>
Of course you speak as a developer (btw. a very experient one), and
your experience must be factored in. Also you also take into account the
fact that, sometimes, new versions break old well established/tested
ways of doing things. In your case such breakage is unacceptable and
clearly must be avoided. Unionfs is known to have inflicted such
nuisance. Hence your stance against unionfs, and, to my mind, very well
justified as far as experience goes.
I can only say that, as an occasional producer of Live CDs for my own
consumption, that unionfs has never caused me any trouble whatsoever,
and nowadays seems to be quite mature. As a matter of fact, the
linux-live script from the 6.x series now uses 'aufs' (another union
filesystem (...)), a rewrite of unionfs with same concepts but different
interface. I am not adocating anything here; just stating the facts.
If I have read correctly the OP intentions then I think he should look
at this alternative and see if it fits his bill. I just hope it does.
Richard
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
