On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 05:57:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:29:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 13:03:45 +0200, Maximilian Attems > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > naa initramfs-tools are in the archive an working for all arch but > > > sparc (klibc ftbfs there with gcc3.4/4.0). > > > > > the kernel-package does not yet use the initramfs-tools. you need to > > > invoke update-initramfs like this: sudo update-initramfs -c -k > > > 2.6.13-1-686 > > > > Err. putting > > ramdisk = /usr/sbin/mkinitramfs > > in /etc/kernel-img.conf does seem to work. Or are you talking about > > using mkinitramfs by default? mkinitramfs fails if the kernel version > > is not at least 2.6.12, so it can't be used unilaterally. > > Would a solution to this not to have the kernel provide a > /etc/kernel/postinst.d/<version>/kernel.sh script, which would in turn call > mkinitramfs or mkyaird (or whatever it is called), or alternatively have .. the patch that uses mkinitramfs-tools conditionaly in ubuntu is very small and easy to integrate.
> > I guess we could add a version specific check into the > > postinst to default to using yaird or mkinitramfs , if installed, in > > preference to mkinitrd, though I am usually hesitant to add in > > version dependencies into kernel-package in general, I could be > > persuaded that an exception is justified in this case. > > Would a solution as proposed above be more to your liking :) ? naa, working with kernel-package is very fine. my proposal is just to localize changes, so that we clearly know, what broke? releasing a new upstream version and changing the early boot stuff in the same time needs to be avoided. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
