Hi, Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> Aren't all release archs building a kernel with initrd support that > is used in D-I? By the same reason all release archs should be > using initrd in sarge for at least on kernel-image or not? There's a fundamental difference. The d-i initrd contains an installation system and must be generic in order to support as many configurations of a given arch as possible. In order to achieve this, it includes all the modules, runs discover to detect hardware - and is generally quite large. The kernel-image initrd, on the other hand, only serves to bring up the root filesystem of one specific configuration. Therefore, it contains very few modules and only a handful of programs - in fact, the largest single component right now is the unpruned libc, accounting for roughly two thirds of the ramdisks on my systems. The main problem with adding initrd support to the kernel-image packages lies in including the correct modules in the initrd. > I would like to have a tree structure: > > vanilla source (cleaned up to be free) > | > | > debian patches > / | \ > / | \ > arch1 arch2 arch3 patches Exactly what I had in mind. The important thing is that all lines should work both ways - stuff at the lower level uses stuff from the higher levels for building, and stuff that enters at the lower level is reviewed, improved and eventually included at the next higher level, the final goal for all patches being the mainline kernel tree. Regards, Jens. -- J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe! Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je p�zqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!
