Re: UnionMount status?

[Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 04:31:48PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 17 August 2010 14:03, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@centrum.cz> wrote:
> > On 16 August 2010 20:52, Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for attaching your .config. ??CONFIG_UNION_MOUNT wasn't set:
> >>
> >> # CONFIG_UNION_MOUNT is not set
> >>
> >> Try rebuilding with that on. ??Yes, it should build without
> >> CONFIG_UNION_MOUNT and I'll test that for next release.
> >>
> >> -VAL
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, I thought I enabled it.
> >
> > Anyway, I changed that option in the config but it still does not build.
> >
> 
> OK, a build without the ext2 filesystem works.
> 
> Now when I try to mount the filesystem I get:
> 
>                      (initramfs) mount_full -t tmpfs -o union tmpfs /root
>                       [   43.403419] tmpfs: No value for mount option
> 'union'
>                       mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock
> on tmpfs,
>                              missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>                              (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>                              need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper program)
>                              In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>                              dmesg | tail  or so
> 
> I wonder if the docs are out of date. They suggest to only add -o union.
> 
> I think it used to work, I recycled the scripts that produced the
> halfway-booting system last time.

Hm, does mount_full call the new mount binary built from the union
mounts util-linux-ng git tree?  You can find the git tree here:

http://valerieaurora.org/union/

-VAL