On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 08:19:14PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > If not, why? > > > > I guess generic miscomprehension, or whatever. The fact that ubuntu > > uses initramfs-tools for example, and so on. > > I would guess similarly. My interest was (and still is) actual concrete > reasons from those (if any) not interested. > > Silence as response to both questions (from all but you and I) I dare > interpret as "we have already decided on initramfs-tools and are either > too lazy or too busy to even shed light on the issues we have with > yaird".
Please interpret it as too busy to reply right now, as many in the kernel team are over-worked with RL stuff these days :) > > I think what would be of most interest is a technical description of > > both solutions, as well as a list of arches where it is known to > > work, should work, almost works, fails utterly. > > It is not only arches, but also combinations of features: > > With initrd-tools, running 2.4-x when installing a 2.6-x kernel causes > the tool to switch from "dep" to "most" because (I believe) it cannot > probe kernel module dependencies. Same situation will currently cause > yaird to fail completely,as it requires sysfs and udev support in the > running kernel. We don't care about 2.4 kernels, and we don't care about initrd-tools, the choice is between intiramfs-tools and yaird, i favor a solution where this choice can be left to the user. > The features - mount types and kernel command line options - supported > or planned by yaird is listed upstream here: > http://www.xs4all.nl/~ekonijn/yaird/yaird.html > > > Generally, yaird has a minimalistic approach, wanting to include only > what is known to be needed - whereas it seems initrd-tools and > initramfs-tools both include all except what is known not to be needed. > > > > The fact that yaird doesn't use klibc seems to be a nice feature on > > those arches where klibc is still broken. > > Another point is size: Do all of those arches with a working klibc > support the large initramfs'es generated currently by initramfs-tools? > > And do I remember correctly that some tools in the initramfs using klibc > and others (like mdadm and lvm) using glibc can cause trouble? > > > > I believe the best solution is to leave the choice to the user, with > > a sane default depending on the arch/subarch used. > > I agree. Similar to the choice of LILO or GRUB (or other bootloaders > when relevant). Except done right, and not the mess that the bootloader selection is right now :) Friendly, Sven LUther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]