On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 04:01:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > (CC to d-kernel and yaird-devel for comments. Topic is a question in > Debian Installer regarding the initramfs generator to use. > For the start of the thread see: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2005/12/msg01228.html) > > On Thursday 29 December 2005 09:07, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > by which tool, we can either set single defaults or drop the priority > > > to medium. > > > > s/can/must..:-) > > > > Given that the question is really technical, I would even suggest to > > drop the priority down to low.....
agreeing. > Hmm. I think it is on the same level as offering static network > configuration over DHCP or, maybe better, (not) loading some modules > during hardware detection. > > The main advantage of the patch as I see it is its flexibility: it allows > both us and derivatives to set things up as they like with only minor > changes: > - per arch defaults > - option of offering alternative generators > - option to ask the user which generator to use > - option to preseed > It also makes the installer independent of the default dependency set in > kernel-image packages. > > We could even add a template to set the priority of the question per > architecture if there is a real need for that... > > I agree the question should be avoided if possible, certainly for default > installs. Whether to ask the question during medium priority installs is > debatable, but, as long as both tools have issues, IMO a good thing. > > My main reason for setting it high initially was the brokenness of > initramfs-tools (or udev or whatever) wrt. the loading ide-disk in some > cases. As that will be fixed in a new upload of initramfs-tools today, I > see no problem with changing the priority to medium. fs uploaded it. thanks a lot for your testing. > Next thing to decide is which of the two generators should be default. My > personal preference goes to initramfs-tools. Main reason is that yaird's > "minimalistic" and "fail when in doubt" approach is more likely to result > in (possibly unneeded) installation failures than initramfs-tools. The > second reason is the missing support in yaird for drivers that do not yet > have sysfs support. > I feel that yaird's approach is more suited to upgrades than to new > installs. A failure to reboot is probably less problematic for a newly > installed system than for a production system (therefore having yaird as > the default dependency in the kernel-image packages might be a good > choice). cool. the choice in k-p is decided to be rotated. 2.6.14 is yaird 2.6.15 is initramfs-tools so no final decision there. > - Question asked at medium priority > - Default generator settings (based on [1] and klibc availability): jbailey is working on removing the klibc dependency. that should clear a lot of archs for us. busybox is currently missing fstype, run-init and ntfsmount (klibc-utils). > Default: initramfs-tools yaird > Default[alpha]: initramfs-tools > Default[hppa]: yaird > Default[ia64]: yaird > Default[m68k]: yaird > Default[mips]: yaird > Default[mipsel]: yaird > Default[sparc]: yaird > > [1] http://wiki.debian.org/InitrdReplacementOptions yaird has an heavy perl + modules dependency, initramfs-tools will take much less space. regards -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
