[Stefano Zacchiroli] > If you are ready to monitor the issue closely, I don't see any > problem in switching the default now in unstable, see how it goes, > and then decide later on if revert back to the current default in > Squeeze time.
The switch to parallel booting was done 2010-05-14 in unstable, and entered testing 2010-05-26. As far as I can see, it is holding up fairly well. These are the issues I am aware of that was exposed by the parallel booting: A race condition between nvidia drivers and kdm was made to trigger more often (#582550, #583312), wicd seem unable to do NFS mounts and set up the network correctly (#508289, #581586), and parallel booting fail completely with OpenVZ (#583562 fixed/worked around by todays sysvinit upload). I expect all of these to find some solution before Squeeze is released, but can not guarantee it, of course. There is also an issue with bootchart reporting a slower boot for some machines(#581907) , but I am starting to believe this is an artifact of how bootchart measure the boot time (as in stopping the clock too early in the non-parallel measurement), and not really a regression in real boot speed. What are the opinions on this? Should we continue with parallel booting, or go back to sequential boot for Squeeze? Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flocfj6l3w....@login1.uio.no