Is unionfs usable on -CURRENT?

[Charles Sprickman]

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Gary Palmer <gpalmer at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 04:14:35PM +0300, Lev Serebryakov 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?

Thanks,

Charles

> Regards,
> 
> Gary
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-fs at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"