[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: SquashFS?



On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 18:35 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 13:20 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Darko Ilic wrote:
> > 
> > > I wanted to ask what are the opinions on the subject, and is there any chance 
> > > for SquashFS to make it's way into Fedora kernel by FC5? I`ve heard it was 
> > > submitted to LKML recently and there was some discussions surrounding that 
> > > and that it is a likely candidate for the upstream kernel.
> > 
> > If it makes it upstream, then most likely, yes.

> I'd like to see a quality Fedora LiveCD.  At my day job we're evaluating
> livecds for kiosks, recovery, and lab installs.  What has struck me in
> recent days is that they're _all_ Debian based.  If we want this to
> change, we need to create liveCDs that 

> squashfs and unionfs are both kernel modules that are pretty standard
> fare in the liveCD world but are not part of the mainline kernel.  We
> need to include them in Fedora in order to advance our reputation in the
> liveCD arena.

	I spoke with Andrew Morton about unionfs when we were both at Linux
Lunacy V.  He stated that nobody had approached him or Linus about
unionfs and they had not heard a peep about it.  But, if someone wants
to submit patches and follow up on it, they are more than willing to
look it over and consider it.

	So, as far as unionfs goes, it's up to the developers to approach the
kernel people about inclusion in the upstream sources.  So someone needs
to push the unionfs developers.

> There are three alternatives here.  1) We don't care about LiveCDs.  If
> you want to make a serious LiveCD based on Fedora, you have to fork and
> maintain some packages outside of the Fedora arena.  2) We get these
> integrated into Core despite the fact that they aren't upstream
> [Example: GFS] 3) We integrate these modules in Extras.
> 
> Is this important enough to Red Hat that Core manpower can be expended
> to make this happen?  Or can we finally muster the will to package
> kernel modules for Extras _knowing_ that the policies and proceedures we
> set out in the first cut will need to be revised, possibly with a great
> deal of pain?
> 
> Sorry for the emotion but kernel modules are currently stuck in a very
> undesirable limbo that's not doing Fedora as a whole any good.
> 
> -Toshio
> 
> PS - I discovered that work has one old Puppy Linux disk so that's one
> non-Debian distro... It's not Fedora-based, though.
> -- 
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  mhw WittsEnd com  
  /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/       |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]