[gobolinux-users] Unionfs to replace sandbox?

Lucas Correia Villa Real lucasvr at gobolinux.org
Thu Oct 6 13:27:24 GMT 2005

On Monday 03 October 2005 18:35, André Detsch wrote:
> 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
> dependency.
> 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.

Hi there,

Sorry, but I have been away on the last week from the mailing list. I think 
it's ok to have UnionFS, given that we don't rely entirely on its 
existence. I've enhanced the cross-compiling environment during the last 
month, and I'm going to add UnionFS into the process on the next weeks.

powered by /dev/dsp

More information about the gobolinux-users mailing list