On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:48 AM, <devuan...@spamgourmet.net> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Jude Nelson - jud...@gmail.com > <devuan.kn.ae5676beef.judecn#gmail....@ob.0sg.net> wrote: >>> The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least >>> common denominator for everything. That flat out stops progress. >> >> This is simply not true. A key hallmark of good application design is to >> keep the business logic as decoupled as possible from the layers beneath it, >> thereby enabling both freedom of choice for the user and independence from >> the application's needs for the stack's developers. Often, this is achieved >> by means of a "driver" that translates requests from the business logic to >> the underlying layers and back. > > There is no application design in that proposal whatsoever. It is only > a proposal to split up a distribution into a set of files with similar > properties and how to use mount to combine those sets again. >
I believe this may be beyond a proposal, with or without an application design. In an email to linux-btrfs called "Recursive subvolume snapshots and deletion", Lennart states: "Since a while systemd has now by default creating btrfs subvolumes for /var/lib/machines for example." The full text can be found here: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg42455.html He also makes this statement in the email: "We could work around this in userspace, of course, but it would not be atomic, and I'd much prefer if the kernel could do this on its own!" Just an FYI. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
