Re: klibc only initramfs
(long time no see!)
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 04:13:56PM +0000, Adam Conrad wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:00:31AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:26:48AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >
> > > You could obviously just fall back to using the full .so in the case of
> > > initramfs generation.
> If we can detect that the libc generated is unsuitable, then this
> fallback seems safe enough.
The main problem is that this is indeed not easy to detect (otherwise
this would be a non-issue).
> The extra upshot of this is that some of the weirder corner cases you
> refer to that have bitten d-i in the past (A) have made the implementation
> more robust, but more interestingly (B) new and similar issues will be
> discovered and fixed more readily if this is being tested by more than
> just a handful of installer builders/testers.
That much, certainly, is true. I guess it is the better argument to
indeed go for this option, though I would still suggest doing so in
The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying to fool the system.