Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unionfs will involve a kernel change.
Erik's got a ko to add to the initrd AIUI.
Have we considered sorting by date and removing from oldest to new until
the threshold is reached?
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Deepak Saxena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 25 2008, at 20:00, Daniel Drake was caught saying:
So unionfs is the formal bug fix for 8.2 going forward, or is it a
Uruguay-specific thing?
unionfs will involve a kernel change. Are we planning to shift them from
Kimberley Quirk wrote:
OLPC's response is Failsafe for 656, per703, and 8.1.2; and a formal
bug fix for 8.2 going forward:
Uruguay:
Erik is working with Uruguay on the solution described as Union
Mount below. It is important that Uruguay own this bug fix themselves
and can maintain it
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unionfs will involve a kernel change.
Erik's got a ko to add to the initrd AIUI.
Have we considered sorting by date and removing from oldest to new until
the threshold is reached? Perhaps excluding starred items.
Both
On Jul 25 2008, at 20:00, Daniel Drake was caught saying:
So unionfs is the formal bug fix for 8.2 going forward, or is it a
Uruguay-specific thing?
unionfs will involve a kernel change. Are we planning to shift them from
2.6.22 to 2.6.25 where unionfs has been included, or are we going to
