I've been tinkering with the "Package User's" method, and I believe that I like it over unionfs ... I shied away from unionfs management because of two reasons:
* I perceive unionfs as requiring minor (but additional) runtime resources to handle the mounting / unions where as the user package scheme doesn't. * The union FS page (http://www.filesystems.org/project-unionfs.html) has a link to a number of unionfs examples, (http://www.linux-live.org/unionfs/) which in fact turns out to be a fellow's private tirade against unionFS and suggests using AUFS due to excessive crashes ... Have you experienced unionfs as being stable/unstable? Have you found unionfs chews additional resources? I'm honestly asking, because I was very much interested in unionfs due to the latest hint published ... it looked like just the style of system I wanted ... On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Esben Stien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. I suggest we fix this once and for all and use unionfs. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
