On 2011-09-15 16:57, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > Of course you can solve it differently, for example splitting udev as > Joost proposes. But then is more code to maintain, and the number of > possible setups is suddenly the double it was before. It. Is. Not. > KISS.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Unix_philosophy I can especially point out: Rule of Modularity Rule of Parsimony Rule of Diversity > It's a lot like the CUPS/lprng situation we discussed before. CUPS can > do anything that lprng does, so it makes no sense to keep support for > lprng. It's the same: with an initramfs you will be able to do > anything, so it will make no sense to keep supporting initramfs-less > systems. "... one ring to rule them all..." Best regards Peter K
