On 24/01/17 08:57, sf...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: > "M. J. Everitt": >> Thanks for that, I'll give that a roll, see how I get on. Hopefully that >> will be all! > Good luck, but there is an irritating situation. > The list in my previous mail is the difference between aufs3.12.31+ and > aufs3.13, but I don't know whether all these commits are merged into > v3.12.52. Additionally v3.12.52 may contain the changes from v3.14, > v3.15 ... v4.9. So applying "all" will be very hard I am afraid. > > I'll try explaining more. > Roughly saying your v3.12.52 is something like this. > - base is v3.12.0 obviously > - might be added a part of v3.13 > - might be added a part of v3.14 > ::: > - might be added a part of v4.9 > > So in order to fully support, you have to do like this. > - check what change was added to v3.12.52 > - find out the corresponding commits one by one from the mainline. in > the mainline, the corresponding verions may be distributed widely. I > mean some of them are originated v3.13, and the others are from v3.14, > v3.15 and so on. > - finding out all mainline versions per the change, then you need to > find the corresponding commits in aufs. and pick them up one by one > manually. > > For example, > - you found out that v3.12.52 has the commit > 0da9ac2 2015-07-30 get rid of s_files and files_lock > (originally you wrote as [2]). > - I found out that the corresponding commit in mainline is > eee5cc2 2013-11-09 get rid of s_files and files_lock > which is against v3.13. > - I searched aufs3.13 and found the corresponding commit > c4f4458 2013-12-17 aufs: for linux-3.13, s_files is gone and si_files > has= > come > - finally we found that the commit c4f4458 in aufs3.13 will be > necessary. but it is not guranteed that c4f4458 can be applied > cleanly. it may be required to modify manually. > > Do I make myself clear with my broken English? > I just give you a warning "ALL will be really hard." > > > J. R. Okajima Hi,
Yes, I feared it would probably be a bit like that - but I see exactly what you mean, and thank you for explaining it. I'm sure with a bit of help and perseverance I should be able to work it out, and of course, will post my findings to the ML for info. Best regards, Michael.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
