On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:00:31AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:26:48AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > You could obviously just fall back to using the full .so in the case of > > initramfs generation.
If we can detect that the libc generated is unsuitable, then this fallback seems safe enough. > Also, changing back to a working initramfs may be rather hard, depending > on the bootloader in use. This argument holds for just about any change (epecially ones that we suspect might behave different on different architectures, with different bootloaders, or with different underlying storage techniques), and the answer is the same in all cases. Test, test, test. I know it's nowhere near as true as it was a decade ago, but "people running unstable should know how to fix something as simple as their system failing to boot due to a broken bootloader/kernel/initrd". Personally, I think the idea of cutting out the klibc duplication and stripping eglibc during initramfs generation is a pretty reasonable solution to this longstanding issue. The extra upshot of this is that some of the weirder corner cases you refer to that have bitten d-i in the past (A) have made the implementation more robust, but more interestingly (B) new and similar issues will be discovered and fixed more readily if this is being tested by more than just a handful of installer builders/testers. ... Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100307161356.gb1...@0c3.net