On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:23:08 +0200
David Härdeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:12:15AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Good point. Thus it looks like there is no right way [...]
How about making the use of
also sprach David Härdeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.18.0118 +0200]:
The reason I didn't use it in cryptsetup's initramfs script was that
many people who have 1 kernel use the second one as a fallback. In
case the updated version of the package which calls update-initramfs in
its postinst
Am Freitag 18 Mai 2007 08:26 schrieb martin f krafft:
also sprach David Härdeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.18.0118 +0200]:
The reason I didn't use it in cryptsetup's initramfs script was that
many people who have 1 kernel use the second one as a fallback. In
case the updated version of
On Fri, May 18, 2007 08:26, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach David Härdeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.18.0118 +0200]:
The reason I didn't use it in cryptsetup's initramfs script was that
many people who have 1 kernel use the second one as a fallback. In
case the updated version of the
also sprach Hendrik Sattler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.18.0842 +0200]:
Does that help you when you cannot boot anymore?
grub provides an interactive shell.
also sprach David Härdeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.18.0844 +0200]:
True, but that won't help if two initramfs-tools using packages have
David == David Härdeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David True, but that won't help if two initramfs-tools using
David packages have been updated since last boot and it also
David requires the user to know that the backup exists and how to
David tell grub to use it.
...or if using
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:12:15AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Good point. Thus it looks like there is no right way [...]
How about making the use of -k all configurable?
Gabor
--
-
MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation
On Fri, 18 May 2007 16:41:41 +0200
Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:12:15AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Good point. Thus it looks like there is no right way [...]
How about making the use of -k all configurable?
That seems like a good idea... but what
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 04:51:46PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
That seems like a good idea... but what would be the default?
Doesn't matter as there are already examples of both behavior so picking
a random value and flamdebating it later is fine. The important
thing is to make the behavior
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:12:15AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Good point. Thus it looks like there is no right way [...]
How about making the use of -k all configurable?
The point I was trying to make before is that the
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:23:55AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Tim Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.15.2201 +0200]:
Now what do people think is the best option? (And why?)
I use -k all in mdadm already. I could not find any reasons why that
would not be a good idea.
The
Hi,
I maintain uswsusp. It is a package that relies on a binary on the
initramfs that will start the resume process. This binary (and some
other stuff) get installed via an update-initramfs call in the postinst.
On some updates, the new binary that suspends the system is
incompatible
also sprach Tim Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.15.2201 +0200]:
Now what do people think is the best option? (And why?)
I use -k all in mdadm already. I could not find any reasons why that
would not be a good idea.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`.
13 matches
Mail list logo
