-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 severity 340759 minor thanks
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:52:08 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. Was I dreaming again, or did he in fact lower the severity of this bug? > > 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. Ah, thanks: You just convinced me that this is a bug (so raising severity slightly), although still not a serious one. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDiCfMn7DbMsAkQLgRAprtAJ0deWboUq4CEkfPnVo4x+YLWfpCUQCfatHS Lekx1qdQjoSpGnyaNVFdbtM= =jMI3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
