[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Read-write tarfs
From: |
Joshua Judson Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: Read-write tarfs |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:22:38 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 08:13:03AM -0800, James Morrison wrote:
>
> --- "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@kemisten.nu> wrote:
> > Sure. ;) But I think you missed the point: The `--volatile' options
> > makes newly created nodes "volatile". That is, they won't get
> > synced to the tarball when asking the translator to go away. :)
> >
> > Ponder, what is the point of removing the object files; isn't that a
> > bit bakwards? Removing debugging symbols is probobly as stupid...
Well, I suppose they aren't -removed- so much as just -not written in
the first place-, yes? Er..., something like that....
> No, it's not backwards. It makes perfect sense. Removing debugging symbols
> also makes sense for most binaries. I think the volatile feature is really
> cool. No more untarring stuff onto the filesystem when it can all stay in
> RAM :)
Hm. Maybe it'd be nice to put this buffering feature into its own
translator--a `bufferfs', to layer over other translators.
I remember seeing some nice things done with totally-buffered
file-systems--SuSE, for example, having `live trial' CDs that could be
loaded and run-with, and the whole file-system would be writable, but
it wouldn't go anywhere except RAM. No hard-disk needed, even if one
wanted to see what it was like to hack on things. It might be nice to
produce something like that :)
--
"In my experience, there's no such thing as a software design that's
correct from the start. Redesign should be built into the process,
because it *will* be required." --Bill Gribble, guile-user
pgp3lLUwLE78l.pgp
Description: PGP signature