| 1 |
How does the absense of a read-only file-system affect the ability to |
| 2 |
have a union-mount only 'visible' for a specific user or user-process? |
| 3 |
Or is this read-only thing necessary to solve another problem? |
| 4 |
Essential for the union-mount solution to work, is that it can at |
| 5 |
least be *only* visible/available for a given (user) process. Otherwise |
| 6 |
your system is less different from a progressive system. Still in that |
| 7 |
case, the union-mount solution might have some advantages, like simple |
| 8 |
repair, and a backup procedure (unmount the union-mount, or restart the |
| 9 |
machine -- assuming you didn't add the union-mount to fstab). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On 16-12-2005 22:02:40 +0100, Dirk Schnberger wrote: |
| 12 |
> Hi, |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> again some results from the unionfs theory. |
| 15 |
> Seems the real problem is not the unionfs, which seems to work, but instead |
| 16 |
> the problem to actually mount an existing file system as read-only. |
| 17 |
> For Mac OSX seems to work only the was to eiter direct mount from CD, or to |
| 18 |
> mount a disk image (.dmg). |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The missing link seems to be a "Null file system" (nullfs), which allows to |
| 21 |
> mount a folder into another folder. Nullfs seem to exist on other systems, |
| 22 |
> like FreeBSD, but not on Darwin (or at least it is not build and deployed). |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> There seem to be some ideas in regards to being able to use a nullfs as a |
| 25 |
> Darwin kernel extension (.kext), but these ideas don't seem to be finished / |
| 26 |
> buggy. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Sorry, doesn't seem to work that way. |
| 29 |
> Regards |
| 30 |
> Dirk |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 35 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives