On 4/17/06, Lucas Correia Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/16/06, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/15/06, Lucas Correia Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Might be interesting to try passing that parameter to mksquashfs (and > > > see how much the file size will increase), or do a rollback of the > > > Unionfs patch version. The current UnionFS version is 1.1.3, but I've > > > just seen that 1.1.4 is out now. > > > > > > > I checked, for 2.6.16 we should use unionfs 1.2.x which is currently > > only in CVS. Should we use it (or look for more patches), or wait for > > unionfs to stabilize. > > Aah, good to know that. I think it's ok try the CVS, if there are bugs > reported on the version we have been using so far.
I think unionfs is too much of a core thing for us to rely on CVS in a stable release! I suggest rolling back to stable versions. -- Hisham _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
