Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:46:49PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, friendly Sven Luther said: On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:14:02 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: #343427:

Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

This one time, at band camp, friendly Sven Luther said: [ a long unfriendly rant snipped ] Frankly, I don't care whether or not yaird is the default ramdisk generator for the kernel. An MIA upstream is a good reason to decide against it, in fact. The entire rest of your argument sounds like

Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

This one time, at band camp, friendly Sven Luther said: On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:17:39AM +, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, friendly Sven Luther said: [ a long unfriendly rant snipped ] Frankly, I don't care whether or not yaird is the default ramdisk

Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

What about you all stop Cc'ing this non-relevant bug? Thank you... (FWIW my opinion is that yaird should not be the default because hardware changes will make the system unbootable if the drivers needed to mount / are not in the initramfs.) -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital

Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:17:36AM +, Stephen Gran wrote: Please have a look at the patch, and show me how it is broken. Of course I've looked at the patch, that's how I came to the conclusion it's broken. Please don't jump to conclusions. Your patch makes the assumption that

Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:01:39PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:36:39 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The quality of the maintainers of both tool also play an important role in which tool to chose as

Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:14:02 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: #343427: linux-image-2.6.14-2-powerpc: Installation fails #345067: [powerpc] ide-generic is not built on powerpc, yaird tries to include it and fails Both relate to ide-generic. Difference between yaird and

Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:14:02 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: #343427: linux-image-2.6.14-2-powerpc: Installation fails #345067: [powerpc] ide-generic is not built on powerpc, yaird tries to include it and

Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

This one time, at band camp, friendly Sven Luther said: On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:14:02 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: #343427: linux-image-2.6.14-2-powerpc: Installation fails #345067: [powerpc]

Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

Is there any drawback to just switching the default dependency to be on yaird instead of initramfs-tools? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 04:24:55PM -0500, Mike O'Connor wrote: Is there any drawback to just switching the default dependency to be on yaird instead of initramfs-tools? Yes. You can't install yaird on upgrade from a 2.4 kernel. And currently, you can't install initramfs-tools on upgrade from

Bug#349354: why not yaird by default?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:09:29 -0800 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 04:24:55PM -0500, Mike O'Connor wrote: Is there any drawback to just switching the default dependency to be on yaird instead of initramfs-tools?