Re: live-boot todo for wheezy
On 06/12/2012 03:14 PM, intrigeri wrote:
> If this was intended to clarify anything, I'm sorry but it did not
> work that well: the specific stuff you explicitly asked us to give
> some feedback/testing (which I tried to do) is not part of this list,
> so I'm now more confused than before.
ok, seems there's a missunderstanding.
what i like:
* feedback if current live-boot and live-boot from experimental
work as expected (in particular wrt/ persistency) in (otherwise)
unmodified wheezy and/or sid live-systems (built with live-build
3.x)
what i got from you:
* interesting message that in some other combination (squeeze +
'unbackported' initramfs-tools from sid), the current versions
of live-boot and live-config from experimental don't work.
what i ment with the previous mail:
* while this is interesting to know and eventually fix why it's
failing in your specific combination as you described (as, from a
live-* point of view, it should not fail and just work),
the combination you were testing is not a priority to look at and
i would only look at that myself if everything else would be
already working as it should.
misunderstanding solved?
> If I used a "proper" initramfs-tools backport to do my tests of the
> live-boot you pushed to experimental, would you care about my report,
> or am I just wasting my time trying to help you test and debug your
> latest work?
absolutely; the squeeze + backports (kernel, initramfs, klibc) is a
priority - we do support and encurage people to use live-{boot,config}
from stable+1 on stable.
> Can you please provide any example of what would fail with 0.106 from
> sid on Squeeze?
with 'unbackported' initramfs-tools from sid on squeeze, e.g. for
network related stuff during initramfs (e.g. netboot, fetch, etc.) will
not work (klibc and /run stuff).
--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email: daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/
Reply to: