Re: initrd/initramfs: we discussed enough, let's take some action now :)

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 09:42:54PM +0200, Erik van Konijnenburg wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 06:15:04PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > I would really like to have the choice of both approaches, also for
> > less common tasks like switching from 2.4 or preparing an alien bootup
> > (either for different hardware or for diskless clients).
> 
> Good argument for separate implementations, but note that for the
> universal boot image, both mkinitramfs and yaird need to come up
> with an initscript that does udev and then mdadm, lvm and what have you.
> 
> For this use case, the only difference is whether the cpio file
> is written by a perl script or by a shell script; all the intelligence
> is at boot time, not at build time.
> This makes the difference between the two approaches too small to
> be of much interest to Debian.  For yaird, on the other hand, 
> adding an udev-based template would make it a much more complete
> package.

Well, which is exactly the kind of task the debian-installer does, so it is
only natural to reuse that code for ramdisk regeneration and other kind of
repairs :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther