On 2021-05-03, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > Tangent: I sense some undeserved mysticism surrounding squashfs. > It is not designed to be loop-mounted, any more than ext2 was. It > does not enjoy it. People should stop doing it. The only mysticism I see here is attributing enjoyment to a filesystem. :) Is mounting on a loopback device really any different from any other block device? > But they won't, because many distributions still insist that the > same installer image must be both a bootable CD/DVD *and* boot > when dd'd to a USB drive, on every PC ever made. > That ‘isohybrid’ dream justifies doing unmentionable things to an > iso9660 file system (and only an iso9660 file system), so they > must put the real squashfs on top of that and loop-mount it and > ignore the screams I guess and-- Never heard the screams; what frequency does squashfs emit screams at? :) People have made it work well enough for only slightly less long than I can remember using free software operating systems... > Vagrant Cascadian 写道: >> Well, the suggestion to use squashfs does bear merit; > > It's not a *bad* suggestion, just a bit obvious. Fair enough. >> it would require having some type of writeable filesystem on top, >> such as using overlay fs to mount the installer rootfs with squashfs >> for the readonly bits, and tmpfs for the writeable bits. > > We've always done this. I *thought* so, but... >> As a bonus, using a tmpfs overlay would solve the issue brought up >> recently by someone who tried using the same installer image multiple >> times, and /gnu/store and /var/guix got out of sync due to the >> cow-store only writing to the newly installed system, so that the >> second install failed. > > ...so no, it definitely wouldn't, but I think it's valuable to > understand why you thought so! > > Could you elaborate? Mostly I was referring to: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-04/msg00546.html Though I haven't confirmed that behavior myself. Probably deserves a proper bug report. live well, vagrant