Re: Unionmount. Basic details

[Sergiu Ivanov]

<olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net> writes:
> I actually realized a couple of days ago that unionmount could probably
> be done by a combination of nsmux and unionfs: I think it should be
> possible to do something like
>
>    settrans veth /hurd/unionfs veth veth,,eth-multiplexer

unionfs has option ``-u'' which tells it to include the underlying node
in the list of the merged filesystems, so this command should be
rewritten like

  settrans veth /hurd/unionfs -u veth,,eth-multiplexer

I think that doing in the way you suggest will not result in something
useful, because when unionfs opens node ``veth'', this node will already
be translated by unionfs itself, which means that unionfs will not have
access to the underlying filesystem, as it was obviously intended.

Regards,
scolobb