Vladimir A. Pavlov wrote: > Hi, Stef! > > The idea is really great but I think there are several problems with > it :( > > AFAIK UnionFS isn't in the mainline kernel at the time and we cannot > force people to download, build and modprobe a third-party kernel > module. > > Many people believe if a thing isn't in the mainline then the > developers think it's not stable enough to include it there. This's > especially true for such important components of a system as the > kernel, glibc, gcc, binutils. >
Yes, that's true. Do you maybe know it's getting mainstream?? > /tools is also used instead of /usr to separate the temporary tools > built in the ch.5 from the resulting ones built in the ch.6. > > Building the ch.5 as you pointed may (in theory) result in the > resulting /usr hierarchy containing something that was installed in the > ch.5, that being unacceptable. So, we at least have to use UnionFS in > the ch.6 as well. Ok is this nesassary? It has to be seperate? I do not understand why. When building in ch 6 everything build in ch5 will be overwritten. That's not what happening in ch.6 now, I know, but what's wrong with overwriting everything installed in ch.5? And why do you think unionfs is needed in ch.6 as well? Stef Bon -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
