Re: Bug#569222: risky use of mount from a random partition
On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Colin Watson wrote:
> Frankly, every time I've tried to add a feature to d-i of late that
> involved using some non-trivial amount of extra space, I've had to wade
> through so many objections about breaking floppy support or old
> architectures that I simply gave up. Perhaps that's why I didn't have
> much will to try in this case;
armel is not an "old architecture" and today we've had to disable a few
languages because the initrd for one class of systems was failing to build
because of size issues.
Size has always been and will always be a concern for D-I and is something
that requires constant attention. Especially for components that get
included in every single image.
I've never blocked changes in busybox-udeb. I just like to see them
a) quantified,
b) justified by an explanation of the benefits,
c) checked for possible alternative solutions,
d) discussed.
If after that there's consensus that it's a good idea, you won't hear from
me anymore.
> I've been trying on and off to get enough busybox features for Kickstart
> to work for four years ...
As for the kickstart related change (#348314): that's also simply a BR
that's seen no activity at all since it was opened.
And TBH kickstart is a case where I personally seriously wonder what real
benefits it brings. It may be a cool feature but I can't remember ever
seeing a request for it from a user on the d-boot list. I don't really see
us using getopt for anything else.
Cheers,
FJP
Reply to: