Please let me excuse with Richard M. Stallman for receiving this mail two
times, since I've sent a first one to private only by accident.
On 7/24/05, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this actually working now?
>
Yes, it's actually working. I consider the stowfs support for unionfs
completed.
unionfs has still some issue on writing behaviour though (interested
people can check README and CAVEAT in the source), but this
should not be a problem in case we want to set /bin and other
stowfs-handled directories readonly.
I don't know if writing support will be needed for /bin (and others) or
not, but fixing and making a more rational writing support of unionfs
will be the local next big thing, since it's the only thing not working at
the moment.
More over, the discussion about unionfs limitation on writing support
is a bit more complex (and perhaps less disastrous than what you
might be thinking after my words) so if this triggers a discussion
about this topic I'll be giving more details.
Thanks,
Gianluca
--
It was a type of people I did not know, I found them very strange and
they did not inspire confidence at all. Later I learned that I had been
introduced to electronic engineers.
E. W. Dijkstra
_______________________________________________
gnu-system-discuss mailing list
gnu-system-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-system-discuss
