Re: 2.6 Development Step 1

2004-03-21 Thread David Nusinow
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:03:53AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:36:31PM -0500, Dan Weber wrote: > >First mode of action is either > > merging module-init-tools with busybox or, making a udeb of > > module-init-tools. Since merging wou

Re: 2.6 Development Step 1

2004-03-20 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Dan Weber wrote: > The merge of module-init-tools with busybox would be a mess. First, > insmod, and rmmod appear to be 2.6 compliant from busybox cvs, but the > depmod code is not nearly the same as it was in modutils. I think we > should take joey's idea and make a module-init-tools-udeb. The

Re: 2.6 Development Step 1

2004-03-18 Thread Dan Weber
The merge of module-init-tools with busybox would be a mess. First, insmod, and rmmod appear to be 2.6 compliant from busybox cvs, but the depmod code is not nearly the same as it was in modutils. I think we should take joey's idea and make a module-init-tools-udeb. The maintainer has no issue p

Re: 2.6 Development Step 1

2004-03-17 Thread Bastian Blank
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:36:31PM -0500, Dan Weber wrote: >First mode of action is either > merging module-init-tools with busybox or, making a udeb of > module-init-tools. Since merging would be sufficiently much cleaner > thats my reccomended approach. I nee

Re: 2.6 Development Step 1

2004-03-16 Thread Dan Weber
BTW, Start responding with some features you would like within reasonable range with 2.6. I'll start the list here. Features Requested: lvm2 reiser4 On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:36:31PM -0500, Dan Weber wrote: > The installer and all the toolsets the installer depends on are in