> > 4. we can add an option to mark the raid as force root. > > if we do 4, we should instead add an option to mark something as a > 'soft root', and leave the current semantics alone. the machines i > have that are now not going to reboot properly are both used > remotely, so changing semantics about how they work seems like a > bad idea. i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who does this. > i think i like this the best.
oh, actually. we already (can) have "soft root". by marking something as auto-configure, and booting from it. what we want to change from what the past has been is to enable the auto-configured raids to be used as root when booted from, without them being marked -A root. we should still keep the current -A root semantics, and then people can stop using -A root when they don't need to force it, and just use -A yes. .mrg.
