Using unionfs to handle clashes between AP and the native package manager (e.g. .RPM .deb)

--0016e64f5df413ca6a046f37a04b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi all,
    I the F.A.Q. section "I bet autopackage sucks because ..." in the third
paragraph says:

"[...] In future it's possible that autopackage will register with the
package manager databases to prevent this, or alternatively *a distribution
could provide support for additional prefixes (eg via unionfs) one of which
could be used by autopackage for its own files*. [...]"

- Can anybody elaborate about using unionfs for "support[ing] additional
prefixes"?

- What kind of problems this solution will attack?

- Is there any additional burden for the App developer to use this? (e.g.
Should the binary be relocatable?)

- How can I configure autopackage installer to use such a prefix by default?

Thanks in advance!
Pablo.

--0016e64f5df413ca6a046f37a04b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,<br>=A0=A0=A0 I the F.A.Q. section &quot;I bet autopackage sucks bec=
ause ...&quot; in the third paragraph says:<br><br>&quot;[...] In
      future it&#39;s possible that autopackage will register with the
      package manager databases to prevent this, or alternatively *a
      distribution could provide support for additional prefixes (eg
      via unionfs) one of which could be used by autopackage for its
      own files*. [...]&quot;<br><br>- Can anybody elaborate about using un=
ionfs for &quot;support[ing] additional prefixes&quot;? <br><br>- What kind=
 of problems this solution will attack?<br><br>- Is there any additional bu=
rden for the App developer to use this? (e.g. Should the binary be relocata=
ble?)<br>

<br>- How can I configure autopackage installer to use such a prefix by def=
ault?<br><br>Thanks in advance!<br><font color=3D"#888888">Pablo.</font>

--0016e64f5df413ca6a046f37a04b--