> "Adrian Gibanel Lopez" <[email protected]> writes: >> Should I upload some source code to the bzr system? Where exactly? >> Should >> someone create a new branch/folder for me? (I am sorry but I am not >> expert >> on CVS but I will try to learn). > > Just to check, have you already submitted the problems you found with > udev, live-initramfs, and initramfs-tools as bugs against the relevant > packages? It would be nice to get this fixed permanently so that FAI can > just depend on new-enough versions of the other packages.
No. I've already said something about the reason for not doing so. I do not know which it is the actual bug. Is it busybox's mount command not being updated to the --bind and --remount syntax? Is it initramfs-tools and live-initramfs not using --bind --remount and -o bind -o remount syntax in the right places (Before and after gathering a dinamic mount which supports --bind and --remount syntax? I mean I can understand that live-initramfs is buggy because it is for creating live cds and maybe too many people uses it. But initramfs-tools? Initramfs-tools is used by many people every day! I do not want to bother other packages till someone repeat my debugging process in order to make work a vanilla Ubuntu 8.10 fai package to server Ubuntu 8.10 to the install clients. If someone that understands better than I both initramfs-tools and live-initramfs packages repeats my debug process he might find an elegant fix, the actual problem (maybe only one line of mount)? One of reasons why I used the logic-or sentences for mounting folders is because I do not know if initramfs-tools and live-initramfs used in another scenarios (Used by another packages, not fai) might need to run mount either in --bind or -o bind syntax. If you think that FAI-only developers as the ones who might be subscribed to this mailing list are not enough/sufficient to track the problem, well, we can discuss asking the other packages' developers. However you will have to help me on defining the bug ;). As I already said I have too many doubts. And let's not forget my ldconfig.real call, in my opinnion it is a bug,... but someone will have to track which mount call does the bad job, if it is a dinamic mount (What's the dinamic mount's package ) or an static mount (busybox). Or is it maybe a ld bug? -- Firma Automática 1: --------------------- Adrian Gibanel Lopez Estudiante de Ingenieria de Informatica de Sistemas en la Universitat de LLeida. Firma Automática 2: --------------------- Participante en el III Concurso Universitario de Software Libre. Proyecto: Desdeslin. http://desdeslin.wordpress.com
