-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 04:30:35 +0000 Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-31 22:37]: > > maybe we should give each of them its turn of being default to get > > them widely tested and in good shape for the etch > > More or less deliberately breaking systems isn't the way to go imho. > I took a brief look at yaird and the README clearly states that it is > experimental software and not a viable replacement for initrd-tools > yet - doesn't sound like a good default choice to me then, even in > unstable. I certainly agree that we should not actively attempt to break systems. Both yaird and initramfs-tools are relatively new tools. Both of them produce working ramdisks for a number of cases and both of them has problems. In other words: there is currently no production-ready drop-in initramfs-equivalent to initrd-tools. What fails with the two new tools, yaird and initramfs-tools, are different stuff. Mostly when yaird fails, it realizes the problem at ramdisk build time and causes the kernel installation to fail. Mostly when initramfs-tools fail the problem is discovered only at boot time - - which is fatal to remote-controlled machines. Feel free to judge yaird by its humble documentation. I choose to judge it by its functionality. Don't get me wrong: I really like initramfs-tools, but also I see some very good qualities in yaird as well. I do _not_ consider it hazardous to use yaird, just greatly annoying that not all kinds of boot methods are fully implemented yet. - 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) iD8DBQFDZztcn7DbMsAkQLgRArRxAJ9AlkKb7gyJsAd52m1hSDnskzB9HgCfUcTP IXdJvKQut83AQAAmgBBZ+3A= =lUvS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
