On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:58:09PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:48:52 +0100 > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 08:44:38PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > So, all in all: I agree this is not great, but disagree that the > > > goal of yaird must be to behave exactly like initrd-tools. > > > > Well, i kind of disagree, if the user provides a root= argument, then > > he probably knows what he does, and if he is wrong, then too bad for > > him, but chances are good that he knows what he was doing :) > > So what is our disagreement?
Mmm, i am confused now, from my understanding i gather that yaird right now doesn't respect the root= argument when explicitly given, and altough you find this problematic, you judge it a minor issue. I (and Martin) argue that it is an important feature to be able to override yaird by setting a root= argument. Important if not critical, as asking people to boot into d-i and do hand-stuff to make it work is hardly nice. So, our disagreement is mostly in the priority of this. Notice, that one solution would be for yaird to generate a rescue-initramfs which contains itself and all that is needed to run it (mount /sys, include perl and co, etc) and then regenerate the minimal ramdisk, altough this would mostly amount to having a initramfs-tools-like tool. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
