fusecompress on knoppix-data.img?

[kl522]

Maybe the safest thing is to get the source off sourceforge and proceed?

If you are talking about aufs kernel module for KNOPPIX, there is nothing to worry, Klaus K would have compiled the right version for it. If it had been the wrong version, it wouldn't compile with newer kernel and it won't run. It would be noticed !

By contrast the debian version might be old and faulty, because a typical debian user won't use aufs, so even if it is old and faulty, it would go unnoticed.

If you are talking about aufs-utils or aufs-tools, then I can't say anything about the debian version, because in a typical use, the aufs-utils are not used at all. It would not be surprising if the package faulty.

[Capricorny]

If you are talking about aufs kernel module for KNOPPIX, there is nothing to worry, Klaus K would have compiled the right version for it. If it had been the wrong version, it wouldn't compile with newer kernel and it won't run. It would be noticed !

By contrast the debian version might be old and faulty, because a typical debian user won't use aufs, so even if it is old and faulty, it would go unnoticed.

If you are talking about aufs-utils or aufs-tools, then I can't say anything about the debian version, because in a typical use, the aufs-utils are not used at all. It would not be surprising if the package faulty.

May I suggest that you seem very optimistic about the situation?

First, aufs is a general tool, and it is used "everywhere", not only in Knoppix. The message I linked to was in response to a Debian user. A "typical" Debian user may not need it, true. But many essential libraries are never required by "typical" users, still they are essential.

Second, IF Klaus K has compiled the right version for aufs, then he has done a (rare) departure from his (recent?) general Debian compliance. Which would probably mostly be regarded as a hack, since it is not in sync with utils and tools, which we frequently need when we will modify or check something.

Third, I tend to believe the creator and maintainer of aufs. And the aufs relation to the mainline kernel is - well - "undecided" at best, see for instance the main sourceforge page (http://aufs.sourceforge.net/ ) :

Note: it becomes clear that "Aufs was rejected. Let's give it up." According to Christoph Hellwig, linux rejects all union-type filesystems but UnionMount.

So, as I interpret this, the last thing we should expect, is any kind of automagical updating and integration of aufs.

[kl522]

May I suggest that you seem very optimistic about the situation?

Yes I am. Because I update my kernel very often, each time I have to match it against the correct version of aufs. I have compiled aufs kernel module too many times already.

First, aufs is a general tool, and it is used "everywhere", not only in Knoppix. The message I linked to was in response to a Debian user. A "typical" Debian user may not need it, true. But many essential libraries are never required by "typical" users, still they are essential.

I don't know what "essential" libraries you are talking about. A typical aufs user does not even use the aufs tools. Even knoppix does not use the aufs tools ! Only in rare occasions that you need to use the aufs utils or tools.

[Capricorny]

Yes I am. Because I update my kernel very often, each time I have to match it against the correct version of aufs. I have compiled aufs kernel module too many times already.

If you compile from latest sourceforge version from the developer, it is surely OK. My concern was about the "correct" version of aufs.

I don't know what "essential" libraries you are talking about. A typical aufs user does not even use the aufs tools. Even knoppix does not use the aufs tools ! Only in rare occasions that you need to use the aufs utils or tools.

"Essential" is of course a relative concept. As a new example, on Friday an error message appeared on R-help: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
A possible explanation, mentioned by Brian Ripley, is Debian's versions of the lapack and blas libraries. When Debian is used on a scientific/engineering workstation, those libraries are surely essential, even though the vast majority of users don't use them. They could, however, crop up anywhere, embedded in image processing routines, games etc.

A more actual example is provided by this thread: Use of aufs-tools to make no-wear Knoppix versions for flash memory. With widespread use, those tools could migrate into the "essential" category, I think.

[kl522]

If you compile from latest sourceforge version from the developer, it is surely OK. My concern was about the "correct" version of aufs.

Whatever it is, the point I want to make is that, I am pretty confident that Klaus K have compiled aufs correctly to match his version of kernel. The last thing to suspect is the version of kernel aufs module is wrong. Knoppix will not run if the kernel aufs module is wrong.

The aufs toolset is a totally different story. Knoppix does not use it. Most debian users also do not use it. So I am not surprised that it might be faulty.