Is unionfs usable on -CURRENT?

[Lev Serebryakov]

On 06.06.2018 21:49, Charles Sprickman wrote:

>>> "man mount_unionfs" is very scary. Is is still true? Maybe, here are
>>> some other workarounds to have one directory with static data on R/O FS
>>> and transient data on R/W FS?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, "net-mgmt/unifi5" want to put all working data directly
>>> to its installation directory, which resides on R/O FS of NanoBSD image.
>>
>> I believe the warnings are still at least partly true.  The usual
>> suggestion is to use "mount -o union" instead of "mount -t unionfs".
>> "mount -o union" doesn't have the unionfs issues
> 
> Just chiming in as a casual observer here, but that’s extremely confusing.
> I think most people would assume “-o fstype” or “-t fstype” would basically
> do the same thing.  Is there any reason to keep the broken version readily
> accessible?
 "-o union" is not "-t union", it is not unionfs, completely separate
feature, FS-independent, but limited (you can not overlay nested
directory, only FS root).

-- 
// Lev Serebryakov

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/attachments/20180606/13799707/attachment.sig>