Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:11:16 +0200 | From | Harald Hoyer <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1 |
| |
On 29.04.2015 16:04, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 29.04.2015 um 16:01 schrieb Harald Hoyer: >> On 29.04.2015 15:46, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> Am 29.04.2015 um 15:38 schrieb Harald Hoyer: >>>> On 29.04.2015 15:33, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>>>> It depends how you define "beginning". To me an initramfs is a *very* minimal >>>>> tool to prepare the rootfs and nothing more (no udev, no systemd, no >>>>> "mini distro"). >>>>> If the initramfs fails to do its job it can print to the console like >>>>> the kernel does if it fails >>>>> at a very early stage. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your solution might work for your small personal needs, but not for our customers. >>> >>> Correct, I don't know your customers, all I know are my customers. :-) >>> >>> What feature do your customers need? >>> I mean, I fully agree with you that an initramfs must not fail silently >>> but how does dbus help there? If it fails to mount the rootfs there is not >>> much it can do. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> //richard >>> >> >> We don't handcraft the initramfs script for every our customers, therefore we >> have to generically support hotplug, persistent device names, persistent >> interface names, network connectivity in the initramfs, user input handling for >> passwords, fonts, keyboard layouts, fips, fsck, repair tools for file systems, >> raid assembly, LVM assembly, multipath, crypto devices, live images, iSCSI, >> FCoE, all kinds of filesystems with their quirks, IBM z-series support, resume >> from hibernation, […] > > This is correct. But which of these tools/features depend on dbus?
I would love to add dbus support to all of them and use it, so I can connect them all more easily. No need for them to invent their own version of IPC, which can only be used by their own tool set.
| |