On Nov 23, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> My vote would be to remove [unionfs]; it doesn't work and the only reason >>> it was ever brought in had to do with alleged locking improvements. >> >> Is anyone using it? > > I used to make heavy use of unionfs, and I had no problems. (That was on a > uniprocessor machine several years ago.) I sometimes used five layers: a > base set of sources; a unionfs layer for third party changes; a unionfs layer > for my own changes; a unionfs layer for the "obj" directories; and a final > unionfs layer for files created or changed at build time. For example, I > could easily blow away all the build products but keep the obj directories, > by unmounting the top layer unionfs, removing the files in its backing store, > and then re-mounting it. > > Today, I'd use a smarter revision control system instead of the unionfs > layers to manage the source files, but I might still want a unionfs layer to > isolate changes made at build time. > > I have not used unionfs in the past few years, but it would be a pity to lose > this functionality.
Do you mean `union'? `unionfs' was imported 2008/02/18 and was never enabled in any kernel config. -- Juergen Hannken-Illjes - hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de - TU Braunschweig (Germany)
