Unionfs and bin, sbin, lib

Under development: PCMCIA, wireless, etc.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#1 Post by jemimah »

Darn! I was hoping someone actually had a fix for unionfs. Trying to get it to work under 2.6.33, since aufs seems to be having an issue with corrupting the save file. :x

User avatar
BarryK
Puppy Master
Posts: 9392
Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 09:23
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Contact:

#2 Post by BarryK »

I subscribe to the unionfs mail list, and it's a dead project.

I was forced to leave unionfs some time ago as bugs weren't getting fixed. For quite a long time now, people have posted to the mail list with problems, but no reply.

Actually, it doesn't necessarily mean the project is dead. The developers have done this before, ignore posts, while they are in fact still working on new code. Well, they are ivory tower academics.

EDIT: I just looked at the project web site, they are still releasing new versions, so it isn't dead. Just seems like it from monitoring the mail list.
[url]https://bkhome.org/news/[/url]

amigo
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2007, 06:52

#3 Post by amigo »

But unionfs is now in the kernel, right? So development will have moved there. Most projects don't maintain external development branches once they become part of the kernel -alsa is an exception.

nooby
Posts: 10369
Joined: Sun 29 Jun 2008, 19:05
Location: SwedenEurope

#4 Post by nooby »

if union fs is part of the kernel for all linuxes then the Ubuntu people have no excuse for not allowing an ubuntu save on ntfs as puppy can do.

Slackware derivatives can save on NTFS too. Knoppix and DSL maybe can. I have not tested it. They are not good at recognizing new hardware.

Puppy is unique in how easy it is to set up a frugal install with one subdirectory for each puppy and it takes only some seconds to a few minutes to add an install of a new puppy together with the others while doing that for ubuntu would be very tedious and with no save.

So if unionfs is in the kernel they should be able to add save to NTFS?
Maybe they don't want to?
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

User avatar
BarryK
Puppy Master
Posts: 9392
Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 09:23
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Contact:

#5 Post by BarryK »

amigo wrote:But unionfs is now in the kernel, right? So development will have moved there. Most projects don't maintain external development branches once they become part of the kernel -alsa is an exception.
No it isn't.
[url]https://bkhome.org/news/[/url]

User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#6 Post by jemimah »

I may have found a user-contributed patch for the set-attr bug that's crashing me at the moment - also mounting some tmpfs on /dev/shm fixes the worst of the crashes.

User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#7 Post by jemimah »

My initial tests seem to confirm that mounting /dev/shm and applying the attached patch do make using unionfs a possibility. I need to run it for a few days to make sure, but I think I'm going to switch Puppeee over since I have no idea what's causing the problem with aufs on 2.6.33 and I really want the updated network drivers.
Attachments
unionfs-unlink.patch.gz
(295 Bytes) Downloaded 489 times

Post Reply