| 1 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:52:49 -0400, Robert Bradbury |
| 2 |
<robert.bradbury@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I agree with Wyatt's point. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Wouldn't there be an easy way to reset the last access date on all of |
| 6 |
the |
| 7 |
> files to say 1/1/2009 on a system then execute a relatively robust |
| 8 |
> multi-user boot (and maybe a world emerge upgrade) and record which |
| 9 |
files |
| 10 |
> are actually used during that process, then determine which package they |
| 11 |
> belong to and label those with some "level of criticality"? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
In my opinion, if we really want to speak about a way to implement that |
| 14 |
kind of snapshoting, we should start thinking about providing a better |
| 15 |
integration with lvm, from the root. lvm can take care of the snapshots on |
| 16 |
a non-expensive way, and it would be relatively easy to implement. However |
| 17 |
a lot of stuff would need to be re-documented, starting from the handbook, |
| 18 |
and the init system. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Into my eyes, it's the only serious way to do this at least until btrfs is |
| 21 |
ready for the masses, and there's a long way until we reach that point |
| 22 |
still. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As for the package bits, it's true that the semantic and delimitation |
| 25 |
about what's part of the system and what isn't, and the mechanism to handle |
| 26 |
some things could be better, but I've grown accustomed to the way it is and |
| 27 |
I really don't care if that changes or not. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Jesús Guerrero |
Archives