[gobolinux-users] Unionfs to replace sandbox?

André Detsch detsch at gmail.com
Mon Oct 3 21:35:07 GMT 2005

On 9/24/05, Carlo Calica <ccalica at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hisham, Andre; is Unionfs a reasonable dependency for Scripts?  Might
> be a problem when you upgrade kernels.  I guess --no-sandbox is an
> option.

Sorry for the late answer.
There is a lot of cool things we can do using unionfs. Sooner or
latter we may have new functionalities that depend on unionfs, so we
may, eventually, have our scripts package depending on it. This new
sandbox implementation is a good start to us to get used to unionfs.

While this new script acts like the current sandbox, we may keep both
there and choose which implementation to use based on the presence or
absence of unionfs. So we avoid having unionfs as a obligatory

Regarding the 'write anywhere and I will put the files on the right
place' feature, it's very nice (actually, i did a LD_PRELOAD-based
wrapper with this intention some time ago). This can be used as
fallback for manual compilations, but we must avoid relying on it
while preparing Recipes.

Andre Detsch

More information about the gobolinux-users mailing list