* 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.