writes:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 08:17:30PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>
>> You see, I suppose that some time later we will be adding some
>> specific merging rules, which would be very difficult (if not
>> impossible) with the approach you are suggesting (about reusing
>> unionfs as a whole).
>
Carl Fredrik Hammar writes:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 12:20:40AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > If you're uncomfortable keeping around a process just to implement
>> > a shadow node, consider implementing a dedicated shadow node server.
>> > That just sitts on e.g. `/server/shadow' an
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 07:18:34PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> Carl Fredrik Hammar writes:
> >> I actually realized a couple of days ago that unionmount could probably
> >> be done by a combination of nsmux and unionfs: I think it should be
> >> possible to do something like
> >>
> >>settra
writes:
> I actually realized a couple of days ago that unionmount could probably
> be done by a combination of nsmux and unionfs: I think it should be
> possible to do something like
>
>settrans veth /hurd/unionfs veth veth,,eth-multiplexer
unionfs has option ``-u'' which tells it to include
Carl Fredrik Hammar writes:
>> I actually realized a couple of days ago that unionmount could probably
>> be done by a combination of nsmux and unionfs: I think it should be
>> possible to do something like
>>
>>settrans veth /hurd/unionfs veth veth,,eth-multiplexer
>>
>> (I didn't want to b
