[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [D-I] Supporting 2.6.14 kernels in base-installer

Frans Pop wrote:
> Both initrd generators have limitations in what they currently support. We 
> may have to either always install both, or include logic that 
> pre-installs one or the other depending on the situation.

Based on http://wiki.debian.org/InitrdReplacementOptions I didn't see
any items that were only supported by one or the other that seemed
immediatly relevant to d-i. Did I miss some?

IMHO, and based on similar experience with lilo/grub, making d-i fully
support two alternate programs for doing something has strong negative
effects on complexity, maintainability, and usability. It fragements
developer time and makes us have to deal with a much more complex
system. So I'd really like to see d-i only support one of the two tools by
default, and if neither is able to support all the things supported by
initrd-tools that would be a significant reversion that should be fixed.

This is orthagonal to the kernel packaging supporting use of either
tool outside d-i, which looks to be at the same time both generally
useful and a nice way to have postponed making a decision.

> Currently we modify the configuration of initrd-tools:
> - temporary hardcoding of root partition
> - default resume partition
> Would we need to do the same for the new initrd generators?

I wish my memory was better; I briefly removed the roor partition
hardcoding a few weeks ago, watched initrd-tools break some way, and put
it back, but I forget how they broke. Anyway, if the new tools don't
break right away, whatever the issue is that I'm forgetting doesn't
apply and root partition hardcoding isn't needed.

> The dependency on sysfs and udev will make it practically impossible to 
> install a 2.6 kernel when running the installer with 2.4. We should 
> probably check for this in base-installer and make sure the option is not 
> presented to the user.

BTW, is there an a upgrade path for users of sarge with the 2.4 kernel
to upgrade directly to etch with 2.6? It seems to fail due to that

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: