Hi, [redirecting to debian-live@, has this seems off-topic on #773868; please drop the bug report from the Cc list on next reply, thanks.]
Michal Suchanek wrote (25 Dec 2014 13:45:11 GMT) : > 1) is it worthwhile to have support both for the old overlayfs.ko and > the new overlay.ko? > I am not aware of anyone except myself who was using old kernels > patched with overlayfs which produce overlayfs.ko and I am aware of > the change now so this might be a non-issue. I don't think it's worth supporting the old out-of-tree patchset now that there's a "final" version merged in mainline. > 2) what is the reasoning behind renaming /cow to /overlay? > It the function of /overlay so different that existing tools using > /cow cannot work with it when overlayfs is used? I think many tools > work with the directory by just packing up the content and do not > really care about the details of the union so a needless change in the > directory name would needlessly require updating tools. I do not use > these directories for anything myself so I would not know. I assume you're refering to "Renaming /live/cow to /live/overlay in anticipation of overlayfs.", that I see in the live-boot 3.0~a27-1 changelog entry. This change has been released as part of Wheezy, so I expect any tools that rely on such paths have been updated already. (Not to say I'm a fan of the usual renaming rate in the Debian Live codebase.) Cheers, -- intrigeri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
