Re: --nomount without -u

[Sergiu Ivanov]

Hello,

This has already been discussed on the IRC, and I will simply mention
the decision that has been taking in the live discussion.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 02:21:38AM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 06:07:20AM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> 
> >    settrans myroot unionfs / --mount overlay && chroot myroot
> > 
> > (BTW, this is an obvious use case for union-mounting with something
> > different than the underlying node -- why didn't I see this before?
> 
> Actually there is a problem here: with transparent mounting, the
> translator gets a port to the real underlying node. However, the real
> underlying node is meaningless in this case, as we don't even include it
> in the union. Effectively, we use the explicitely included directory as
> underlying filesystem.
> 
> I wonder whether passing, when there is no -u, a port to the first
> "normal" directory in the union instead, would suffice to make things
> behave as expected? Or would it cause even more confusion?...

The adopted solution is to *always* give the mountee the port to the
first normal directory, because in the usual use case (underlying
filesystem + mountee) the first normal directory will be exactly the
port to the underlying filesystem.

I'm not sure as to the priority I should assign to this task among my
tasks, however.

Regards,
scolobb