On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:45:49AM +0100, Morten Nilsen wrote: > well, if you are going to replace mkinitrd, why in heavens name would > you pick one from *a different distro* when TSL 3 has one that works > fine with 2.6 kernels?
Reasons were at the bottom of the the mail you're replying to. (...) > >>no sense having the stuff you need as modules if your kernel is compiled > >>specifically to your system.. > > > > While I would generally agree with this, there are many reasons > > that might drive you otherwise: > > - when you have more than one SCSI controller and the one that > > connects the boot disk isn't detected first due to PCI IDs that you > > may not be able to change (e.g. on-board controllers) > > then compile only that controller in, the rest as modules. > when I say need, I do mean the stuff needed to get the box booted. If you can advise me on how to convince the kernel to dynamically load a driver for a 2nd SCSI controller while you have one static already, when it needs to mount a FS on e.g. /dev/sdb1, I'd be happy to do so. I haven't managed to get this working until now. > > - I'm quite familiar to TSL 2.2. TSL 3.0 introduces a lot of > > new stuff (e.g. the 4-letter acronym boot thing - can't recall the > > name now) that looks very hostile to me at this point. I just don't > > have time to get acquainted to 3.0 now. > > what? grub? grub is great.. I've been using it since 2.2.. Is Grub an acronym? no, I was thinking of EVMS. Looks quite hostile to me at this time. Guess I need to learn it, but documentation sucks IMHO. > no more LILILILILILILILILILILILILILILILILILILILILILI ad naseum > and TSL 3 still has the option of using lilo... I wouldn't touch Grub with a pole. 10+ years of using LILO, I guess. I love it. Even its defaults :-) Greets, _A_ _______________________________________________ tsl-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.trustix.org/mailman/listinfo/tsl-discuss
