Re: Kernel-package, fix version 2 ...
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 01:41:32PM +0200, Erik van Konijnenburg wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 08:36:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > In any case, i think the best idea would no more be to make a hard choice, but
> > maybe use some kind of heuristic, or even make it configurable at package
> > build time, so that it can be overiden. I need to think about this a bit more.
> >
> > Coments are welcome (and anyone not caring to reply, kind of loses the right
> > to complain afterward, particularly if they claim i am not communicating on
> > this).
>
> Sounds workable, and it's something you can build in the kernel install script
> without need for support from initrd/initramfs builders; I could live with that :-)
>
> Perhaps we can simplify this further:
> * have list of alteratives built into the kernel installer,
> * allow ramdisk= in an /etc file to override this,
> * run them all,
> * and the first one that has exit status 0 and a non-empty image as output wins.
I kind of dislike this let's try everything in turn, in particular i am afraid
of a tool which claim success and produce a broken image, and such. Also it
may considerably slow down installs.
Also the postinsts are in perl, and my perl is not all that good, so i dislike
complex modifications of this kind.
> The nice bit about this is that it should survive with odd version
> requirements like: initrd-tools works for 2.6.12, but not in combination with lvm.
Yep, but will it report failure ?
> The only requirement is that generators do not lie about success in their exit
> status, but no flags are needed.
Yeah, i still feel that the guided approach is better, but hey.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: