On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:34:27PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:23:14PM +0100, Maximilian Attems wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 08:01:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 12:32:29PM -0500, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > > > On dim, 2005-11-13 at 12:46 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > > > I think it is possible at least for initramfs-tools to run without > > > > > sysfs > > > > > on the building system. > > > > > > > > Right. The caveat to this is "dep" mode. The default mode for > > > > initramfs-tools is to include all of the modules that you're likely > > > > interested in booting with in the initramfs and detecting which ones to > > > > use at boot time. If you ask it to detect which modules are needed, it > > > > needs a valid sysfs tree to scan (although it is resiliant in that case > > > > against module name changes) > > > > > > Ah, interesting. > > > > > > Notice that in some case, the "most" mode will produce to huge initrd > > > that are > > > possibly not supported by the kernel/bootloader/firmware. This may be the > > > case > > > on some prep boxes on powerpc at least. > > > > even ozlabs has no prep boxes around. > > (that means no upstream support in the kernel afaik) > > are there any user evidence? > > Sure, i have one, p2mate has one, Attilio has one, i have knowledge of at > least 10 persons > asking about prep support on the debian-powerpc mailing lists this past year, > and debian works flawlessly on those, they are a supported model.
well ok so you may need to invest some time to get them up again. in 2.6.15-rc1 PREP doesn't compile -> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113183511810053&w=2 > I mean, are your words plan to drop everything but x86 and amd64 in the near > future ? wtf? keep your ad hominem attacks for someone else. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
