Joined: Feb. 2007
||Posted: Mar. 03 2008,17:25
|The biggest reason to not use unionfs is that it's too buggy. I thought that's why unc extensions aren't unmounted?|
It's one of the things with a roadblock as far as 2.4 development goes. How much better is its implementation in 2.6? I don't know for certain. Andrew Morton includes unionfs in his tree, fwiw.
| it would make looking in on non-DSL systems harder. |
|although i don't use an hd-install, it can get confusing when someone who does, plans to make an app for hd-install and wants to call it that.|
I think it's worth revisiting whether DSL should even include a traditional hard drive install option when it moves to 2.6. While I generally like as many options as possible, I think there are better options if users want that kind of set up (and I'm saying that as someone who has a couple hard drives with DSL traditional installs). It was okay when DSL's cart was tied somewhat to Debian Woody. But as Debian dropped support for Woody, I think all of that gets in the way and we have too many people asking questions trying to use DSL in ways it's not intended (e.g., someone asking why apt-get dist-upgrade breaks!) and complaining about it. Maybe it makes sense if DSL 2.6 will be tied to another distro, but if it's not 100% compatible and, maybe more importantly, doesn't stay up with changes in that distro, why bother?
I think it's adequate to offer frugal and encourage use as DSL is intended to be used, including with UCI and UNC extensions. Get people away from dsl and tar.gz extensions. If you want a "Debian-like" system, just use Debian.
I know there will be people who will object to being forced to use DSL as it's intended. How long will they get to decide the future of DSL?
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)