Philip Hands <p...@hands.com> writes:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:46:30 +0100, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>> On Dec 22, Philip Hands <p...@hands.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It's not as though the proposal doesn't require me to do that
>> > repartitioning already (if I happen to have such a setup), but
>> No, it does not. Worst case, it requires you to use an initramfs (of
>> some kind, it needs not to be the one generated by initramfs-tools).
>
> Righto - so I generally do use initramfs anyway, and I've been
> allocating at least 250MB for /boot for years, so perhaps I've just
> missed the point with the heat rather than light that's been going on
> in this discussion.
>
> If this "/usr must be mounted early" change goes in, and if I have a
> system that has / and /boot on /dev/md1 and /dev/md2, with a bunch of
> other RAIDs stuck together via LVM and then used to provide /usr and the
> rest of the system, and some idiot in the hosting centre pulls the wrong
> disk out of an already degraded array, thus confusing it to the point
> where its not going to start without my help (as happened to me
> recently): What am I left with?
Then you boot the grml, DI or yet to be made Debian rescue image that you
have on /boot.
MfG
Goswin
--
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/87aa6j15kp.fsf@frosties.localnet
