Re: [Yaird-devel] Re: initramfs generator selection
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 05:47:41PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 29 December 2005 17:27, Sven Luther wrote:
> > What if we defaulted to yaird, we know that yaird, by design, will fail
> > at install time and not at boot time, and give an error message, which
> > we can grab and append to the log messages or whatever.
> It does not in all cases, like for modules that do not have sysfs support.
We just need to fix the kernel so all modules have sysfs support, or make
those drivers that are not sysfs ready builtin in the meantime. This is a
kernel bug, and we are better of knowing about those early than later.
> As it cannot detect these modules are needed, it does not know that it
> should fail...
We had the same problem with discover before, we can just add those modules by
hand after having detected them by other means, once we know about them, using
the yaird configuration files.
> > you want that i give argument to explain my feeling, it is just that an
> > intuitive feeling :)
> I'm afraid that fails to convince me, especially as I _have_ given some
> real arguments why I prefer initramfs-tools ATM.
> > Yeah, but on x86 you default to initramfs-tools, and this one will see
> > the majority of the installations, but i didn't say "no way, don't do
> > this", i just offered you my feeling with regard to the non-maturity of
> > initramfs-tools.
> I have absolutely no problem with your mails in this discussion (except
> for the fact that you are still CCing me that is, but hey, when you were
> bouncing me I installed a filter so I don't actually get to see those).
Ah, damn, forgot again, years of having my fingers type 'g' in mutt without
thinking are really not so easy to work against. Why don't you set
mail-followup-to though as others have counceled about this in the past ?