[gobolinux-users] Unionfs to replace sandbox?

Bill Burdick bill at mobilereasoning.com
Tue Oct 11 22:06:36 GMT 2005

Hey, great to see that you guys are thinking of going the unionfs 
route.  IMHO, that's the 'right' way to do it!

Lucas Correia Villa Real wrote:

>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
>>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.
>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.

	Bill Burdick
	Bill at mobilereasoning.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bill.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 192 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.wotfun.com/pipermail/gobolinux-users/attachments/20051011/35fce85b/bill.vcf

More information about the gobolinux-users mailing list