SquashFS?

[Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 04:21:39PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 19:23 +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 08:03:16PM +0200, Darko Ilic wrote:
> > > Well, having unionfs included in the kernel would be *great* for live CDs. 
> > > 
> > > If we could push both unionfs and SquashFS to go upstream, that would improve 
> > > the quality of live CDs dramatically. 
> > 
> > To have unionfs and squashfs upstream would be nice, yes. But they can
> > be used regardless of being upstream or not.
> 
> Not for an official Fedora Live CD.  One aspect is that it *must* be
> built using components distributed as part of Fedora and we're
> (generally speaking) against patches which aren't upstream because they
> significantly raise the maintenance burden and then also get people
> complaining because the kernel isn't "stock"

I was thinking of adding the source of the modules to the "official
fedora livecd maker". The _binary_ rpm would have the sources.

Thus, no need for kernel patches or any unionfs/squashfs package at all.

The fedora livecd build process will compile the modules on livecd
creation, using the kernel-dev package for the kernel to be used by the
livecd. As the livecd system won't be updated anyway, there isn't even a
need of keeping any unionfs/squashfs package at the same level of the
kernel package.

I'd be rather happy to see unionfs and squashfs packages in extras, and
I even volunteer myself to maintain them. But I still see no need to
have them as packages before they can be used, officially, as part of a
livecd system.

Regards,
Luciano Rocha
-- 
lfr
0/0