On 4/4/08, Marco Amadori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My fix is just related to a standard sid build that boots,
For those who weren't on #IRC and for urgent needings before something similar will be integrated in live-intramfs official packages, here is the url of the fixes: http://git.debian.org/?p=users/mammadori-guest/live-initramfs.git;a=summary -- ESC:wq On 4/4/08, Marco Amadori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/4/08, Kel Modderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > This may not even be the cause of this _specific_ bug, but I mention > it > > anyway. > > Thanks for mentioning it, it will be handy in the future. In fact this > bug seems related to different way of parsing parameters and to some > missing libraries kblibc depends upon. > > > > > what do you suggest, should we basically just call busybox everywhere to > > > get rid of the failures? > > > No, thats probably overkill. A careful audit is required though, of > existing > > code and future imports from casper, to ensure busybox specific features > are > > used correctly. I think only in very compelling cases should a klibc-utils > > binary be overridden like in above example. > > I agree, My fix is just related to a standard sid build that boots, > maybe other use cases which includes using more klibc binaries could > need more care (e.g. persistence) > > > I finally think that the initramfs shell environment is consistent for > both > > when busybox is present or not in initramfs. It makes life difficult for > > live-initramfs, however, because of the overall size of the scripts... > > I agree again. > -- > ESC:wq > _______________________________________________ debian-live-devel mailing list debian-live-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-live-devel