11/03/2011 02:13 AM, intrigeri:
> Hi,
>
> I have published, eventually, in the form of a RFC on the Debian Live
> website, the plans we came up with Daniel last summer about
> improvements to the Debian Live persistence support that are needed to
> support the Tails (https://tails.boum.org/) usecases.
>
> I'd like to get feedback on this plan, especially from list members
> who use persistence features, either for themselves or in the context
> of deployments of Debian Live systems they know well.
>
> Some user interface (read: parameter names and semantics) mangling is
> part of our scheme, so you'd better make sure *now* we did not plan to
> break the particular combination of options you use, incidentally.
>
> Here is the RFC:
>
> http://live.debian.net/devel/rfc/persistence/
>
> Cheers,
There were some slight changes to intrigeri's proposed live-boot
parameters (mostly they accept lists of options instead of single
choices), but most of it is now implemented and part of upstream [1].
What remains [2] is to get a decision from upstream regarding the
proposed custom overlay mounts system ("Design for custom mounts system:
locally specified inclusions" in the updated Debian live persistence RFC
[3]). This will essentially determine whether we will use live-boot
snapshots (i.e. sync content between a compressed archive and tmpfs
where Tails' filesystem changes occur) or overlays (mount persistent
media in Tails' filesystem) for our persistence.
[1]
http://osdir.com/ml/debian-live/2011-11/msg00131.html
[2]
https://tails.boum.org/todo/persistence/#index3h1
[3]
http://live.debian.net/devel/rfc/persistence/
