From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D51E013EF for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2012 13:59:53 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,450,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="208144765" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.13.229]) ([10.255.13.229]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2012 13:59:50 -0700 Message-ID: <505A3245.7070503@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:59:49 -0700 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc Ferland References: <87ipb9d9u8.fsf@sonatest.com> <505A2FAF.60609@linux.intel.com> <87r4px91jy.fsf@sonatest.com> In-Reply-To: <87r4px91jy.fsf@sonatest.com> Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: About bug 2331 X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:59:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/19/2012 01:53 PM, Marc Ferland wrote: > Saul Wold 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!