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