Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Frans Pop <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> (No need to CC me on replies.)
> On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Lee Winter wrote:
>> Nah. The whole point is to support legacy systems that are capable of
>> _running_ the newest software, but whose peripheral suite is not
>> adequte to _bootstrap_ the larger images. is it your belief that the
>> existing 2.4+backports would not work?
> No. The floppy method is NOT targeted only at legacy systems. If it cannot
> exist as a full-featured installation method on the same level as other
> installation methods, then there is no point in maintaining it.
> I'm sorry, but this is the last post from me in this thread.
OK, be like that. ;-)
Seriously, while I respect your decision to not pursue the suggestion,
I would still appreciate understanding the reasons why you find the
suggestion intolerable. The specific questions that appear to be
-- What is the offensive defect in the floppy boot installation
method if it results in a "full featured" system post-install?
-- In there in fact an offensive defect if the floppy boot process
produces the current installer operating over a current kernel?
-- What does "on the same level" mean if something other than the
current installer operating over a current kernel?
> Real legacy systems can always install Sarge and upgrade too.
Point taken. Laborious, but effective.
> I appreciate your idea, but it's just not an approach that I at least would ever want
> to follow.