Re: [Astlinux-users] unionFS compile error WAS trunk astmanproxycompile error

[<ast...@el...>]

> On 3/1/07, ast...@el... <ast...@el...> wrote:
>> > On 2/28/07, ast...@el... <ast...@el...>
>> wrote:
>> >> When doing make for the current trunk (673), it stopped while
>> compiling
>> >> astmanproxy. Seems it's expecting OpenSSL stuff, but since that seems
>> to
>> >> have not been downloaded/compiled/installed yet (A comes before O),
>> it
>> >> fails spectacularly. Is this normal, since trunk could be broken by
>> >> something, or is my environment lacking something? I'm running CentOS
>> >> 4.3
>> >> with all the dev stuff installed and updated. Do I have to do
>> something
>> >> silly like disable that package and compile, then go back and compile
>> >> astmanproxy?
>> >>
>> >
>> > asterisk,
>> >
>> >   I just commited a fix for this in rev 675.  Could you please try it
>> > again?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Kristian Kielhofner
>>
>> I tried compiling with rev 678, that seemed fix that problem. Thank you.
>>
>> Though it next got hung up on unionFS. I noticed on the unionFS site
>> that
>> they are showing version 2.6 for 2.6.20 kernels, rather than the version
>> 1.5 you use, though I doubt that makes much of a difference.
>>
>>
>
> asterisk,
>
>   You are brave for following trunk these days - it has been pretty rough!
>
>   Sorry for all of the changes lately but I think that they are
> important for the progress of AstLinux.  Some really cool things have
> gone in the last few weeks.
>
>   When I upgraded the kernel to 2.6.20 I was unsure of how I wanted to
> handle the unionfs package.  I thought that unionctl may come in handy
> someday...  Truth is it will probably just cause confusion (as it has
> so far).  As of rev 684 I have removed it from trunk.
>
> --
> Kristian Kielhofner
>

Using rev 684, I managed to finish a compile. I was wondering though,
unionFS seems like a good idea to have though, having a clean mixed RO/RW
setup. I don't have a clear understanding of the current filesystem
structure for AstLinux though. Does this mean we should favor a lvm setup
then?