* About bug 2331
@ 2012-09-19 20:41 Marc Ferland
2012-09-19 20:48 ` Saul Wold
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Marc Ferland @ 2012-09-19 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: yocto
Hi,
I'm currently trying to create a "live" system with squashfs+unionfs and
I stumbled on the same bug described here:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2331
I was wondering if there was a plan to resolve this issue for 1.3?
Regards,
Marc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: About bug 2331
2012-09-19 20:41 About bug 2331 Marc Ferland
@ 2012-09-19 20:48 ` Saul Wold
2012-09-19 20:53 ` Marc Ferland
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Saul Wold @ 2012-09-19 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Ferland; +Cc: yocto
On 09/19/2012 01:41 PM, Marc Ferland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently trying to create a "live" system with squashfs+unionfs and
> I stumbled on the same bug described here:
>
> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2331
>
> I was wondering if there was a plan to resolve this issue for 1.3?
>
Marc,
It seems to be marked as resolved and verified, is there still and
issue? If so we need to reopen this bug. Or are you referring to the
underlying issue?
Sau!
> Regards,
>
> Marc
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: About bug 2331
2012-09-19 20:48 ` Saul Wold
@ 2012-09-19 20:53 ` Marc Ferland
2012-09-19 20:59 ` Saul Wold
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Marc Ferland @ 2012-09-19 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Saul Wold; +Cc: yocto
Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> writes:
> On 09/19/2012 01:41 PM, Marc Ferland wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm currently trying to create a "live" system with squashfs+unionfs and
>> I stumbled on the same bug described here:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2331
>>
>> I was wondering if there was a plan to resolve this issue for 1.3?
>>
> Marc,
>
> It seems to be marked as resolved and verified, is there still and
> issue? If so we need to reopen this bug. Or are you referring to the
> underlying issue?
>
I was referring to the underlying issue.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: About bug 2331
2012-09-19 20:53 ` Marc Ferland
@ 2012-09-19 20:59 ` Saul Wold
2012-09-19 21:13 ` Marc Ferland
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Saul Wold @ 2012-09-19 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Ferland; +Cc: yocto
On 09/19/2012 01:53 PM, Marc Ferland wrote:
> Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> writes:
>
>> On 09/19/2012 01:41 PM, Marc Ferland wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm currently trying to create a "live" system with squashfs+unionfs and
>>> I stumbled on the same bug described here:
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2331
>>>
>>> I was wondering if there was a plan to resolve this issue for 1.3?
>>>
>> Marc,
>>
>> It seems to be marked as resolved and verified, is there still and
>> issue? If so we need to reopen this bug. Or are you referring to the
>> underlying issue?
>>
> I was referring to the underlying issue.
>
>
No, unfortunately it seems that did not have visibility, I think bug
1487 is open against that issue, at least with an ISO image, which is
what got partially reverted. I think the issue was upstream unionfs, do
you know if any changes to resolve the problem upstream?
Sau!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: About bug 2331
2012-09-19 20:59 ` Saul Wold
@ 2012-09-19 21:13 ` Marc Ferland
2012-09-19 23:36 ` Bruce Ashfield
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Marc Ferland @ 2012-09-19 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Saul Wold; +Cc: yocto
Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> writes:
> On 09/19/2012 01:53 PM, Marc Ferland wrote:
>> Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 09/19/2012 01:41 PM, Marc Ferland wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently trying to create a "live" system with squashfs+unionfs and
>>>> I stumbled on the same bug described here:
>>>>
>>>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2331
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering if there was a plan to resolve this issue for 1.3?
>>>>
>>> Marc,
>>>
>>> It seems to be marked as resolved and verified, is there still and
>>> issue? If so we need to reopen this bug. Or are you referring to the
>>> underlying issue?
>>>
>> I was referring to the underlying issue.
>>
>>
> No, unfortunately it seems that did not have visibility, I think bug
> 1487 is open against that issue, at least with an ISO image, which is
> what got partially reverted. I think the issue was upstream unionfs,
> do you know if any changes to resolve the problem upstream?
>
Unfortunately no. Maybe I'll have more chance using aufs or maybe
overlayfs. Unionfs looks pretty much dead... I'm probably better off
without it!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: About bug 2331
2012-09-19 21:13 ` Marc Ferland
@ 2012-09-19 23:36 ` Bruce Ashfield
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2012-09-19 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Ferland; +Cc: yocto
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Marc Ferland <ferlandm@sonatest.com> wrote:
> Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> writes:
>
>> On 09/19/2012 01:53 PM, Marc Ferland wrote:
>>> Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 09/19/2012 01:41 PM, Marc Ferland wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm currently trying to create a "live" system with squashfs+unionfs and
>>>>> I stumbled on the same bug described here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2331
>>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering if there was a plan to resolve this issue for 1.3?
>>>>>
>>>> Marc,
>>>>
>>>> It seems to be marked as resolved and verified, is there still and
>>>> issue? If so we need to reopen this bug. Or are you referring to the
>>>> underlying issue?
>>>>
>>> I was referring to the underlying issue.
>>>
>>>
>> No, unfortunately it seems that did not have visibility, I think bug
>> 1487 is open against that issue, at least with an ISO image, which is
>> what got partially reverted. I think the issue was upstream unionfs,
>> do you know if any changes to resolve the problem upstream?
>>
> Unfortunately no. Maybe I'll have more chance using aufs or maybe
> overlayfs. Unionfs looks pretty much dead... I'm probably better off
> without it!
If you check the unionfs support I have staged in the 3.4 kernel, it contains
several big usability fixes.
If you look at the yocto dev kernel, I've dropped unionfs and am taking aufs
for a spin (while watching overlayfs and unionmounts as well).
So there are options to try that may address that issue, and also chart a
way forward.
Cheers,
Bruce
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-19 23:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-09-19 20:41 About bug 2331 Marc Ferland
2012-09-19 20:48 ` Saul Wold
2012-09-19 20:53 ` Marc Ferland
2012-09-19 20:59 ` Saul Wold
2012-09-19 21:13 ` Marc Ferland
2012-09-19 23:36 ` Bruce Ashfield
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.