Re: [Tails-dev] RFC: bind-mounts vs. unions for persistence

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Autor: intrigeri
Data:  
A: The Tails public development discussion list
Assumpte: Re: [Tails-dev] RFC: bind-mounts vs. unions for persistence
anonym wrote (17 Feb 2012 11:27:47 GMT) :
> So, to the question: which one we should use in Tails?


Let me clarify, in case the matter at hand is not clear enough for
those who did not follow closely:

I believe we need to decide which of these should be the only
*supported* one (as in: it's documented, we're happy to provide
support for it, and our GUI tools silently setup this kind of
persistent directories).

As far as I know, whatever decision we make, the (live-boot) backend
will continue to support both systems, and advanced users may want to
edit their $MEDIA/live.persist by hand, if they want to use the other
system for a specific set of directories. <Insert disclaimer here: at
their own risk, YMMV, unsupported, etc.>

[...]

> Hence bind-mounts seem to be the more sensible approach to me.


Seconded.

Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
| Every now and then I get a little bit restless
| and I dream of something wild.