SquashFS?

[Jeremy Katz]

On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 18:35 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 13:20 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Darko Ilic wrote:
> > > I wanted to ask what are the opinions on the subject, and is there any chance 
> > > for SquashFS to make it's way into Fedora kernel by FC5? I`ve heard it was 
> > > submitted to LKML recently and there was some discussions surrounding that 
> > > and that it is a likely candidate for the upstream kernel.
> > 
> > If it makes it upstream, then most likely, yes.
> 
> I'd like to see a quality Fedora LiveCD.  At my day job we're evaluating
> livecds for kiosks, recovery, and lab installs.  What has struck me in
> recent days is that they're _all_ Debian based.  If we want this to
> change, we need to create liveCDs that 

I think a lot of people want to see a live CD and there's something of a
push to get all of the pieces in place for in the FC5 timeframe.

> squashfs and unionfs are both kernel modules that are pretty standard
> fare in the liveCD world but are not part of the mainline kernel.  We
> need to include them in Fedora in order to advance our reputation in the
> liveCD arena.

And the answer to this, at least traditionally, is that the answer is to
get the modules integrated upstream.

Personally, I don't even think this is the biggest area that needs work
for a real, compelling live CD.  Rather, various pieces of the stateless
infrastructure need to be finished and integrated into the core.

> There are three alternatives here.  1) We don't care about LiveCDs.  If
> you want to make a serious LiveCD based on Fedora, you have to fork and
> maintain some packages outside of the Fedora arena.  

Come on, it's not that you _can't_ do a live cd without them.

> 2) We get these
> integrated into Core despite the fact that they aren't upstream
> [Example: GFS] 

And you'll note that GFS is gone again in the development due to the
problems that were had...

> 3) We integrate these modules in Extras.

We're working on module packaging for Extras.  This could potentially be
a way to get people who really want squashfs and unionfs but aren't
willing to try to push upstream...

Jeremy