On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 09:12:25AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:42:12 +0100 > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:58:09PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:48:52 +0100 > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 08:44:38PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > > > > > So, all in all: I agree this is not great, but disagree that the > > > > > goal of yaird must be to behave exactly like initrd-tools. > > > > > > > > Well, i kind of disagree, if the user provides a root= argument, > > > > then he probably knows what he does, and if he is wrong, then too > > > > bad for him, but chances are good that he knows what he was > > > > doing :) > > > > > > So what is our disagreement? > > > > Mmm, i am confused now, from my understanding i gather that yaird > > right now doesn't respect the root= argument when explicitly given, > > and altough you find this problematic, you judge it a minor issue. I > > (and Martin) argue that it is an important feature to be able to > > override yaird by setting a root= argument. Important if not > > critical, as asking people to boot into d-i and do hand-stuff to make > > it work is hardly nice. > > > > So, our disagreement is mostly in the priority of this. > > Thanks for the clarification. It does seem from a later posting, > however, that your view is not necessarily shared with Martin.
I don't think so, and Martin will confirm that. > Correct: I acknowledge that the behaviour of yaird may come as a > surprise to many, and that it is inconvenient for some kinds of > operations, but judge that not as a "bug", but a design decision. Nope, it is a bug. > > Notice, that one solution would be for yaird to generate a > > rescue-initramfs which contains itself and all that is needed to run > > it (mount /sys, include perl and co, etc) and then regenerate the > > minimal ramdisk, altough this would mostly amount to having a > > initramfs-tools-like tool. > > If it is a bug to not behave in all areas like (intended for) > initrd-tools, then there is really no sense in making yaird at all: Well, the design goal is to behave like a proper non-initrd kernel in most respect and have the user not really see a difference. In this way, respecting root= in all case would be similar to having a non-ramdisk kernel with some modules builtin (the ones in the ramdisk), and will naturally fail if root is somewhere else, but in all case, the user can set any root= kind argument he fancies. If the module for his root device is not in the ramdisk, this is expected behavior if it fails. > Next compliant will be (and have already been, if I recall correctly) > that yaird does not support extending by the use of shell snippets. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. > Initrd-tools and yaird and initramfs-tools share a common goal of > creating an initial ramdisk for kernel bootup processes. Lots of other > goals they do not share. Exact, so that the user sees no difference from a non-ramdisk kernel, and this includes a root= argument support. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]