On 06/22/2009 11:48 PM, David Dillow wrote:
This is a difference in design philosophy. We have a native syntax that
seems fully feature capable. Allowing redundancy and variation in this
syntax can confuse people less technically savvy than us who follow
documentation and examples.
The people that do "config by example" are going to find the old HOWTOs
that discuss using nfsroot.txt syntax. A current search for "linux nfs
root" returns the NFS-root mini-HOWTO (circa 1996) and
Diskless-root-NFS-other-HOWTO (circa 2001) as the top two results. In
fact 5 of the top 6 results refer to the nfsroot.txt syntax and the
sixth one refers one to the NFS-root mini-HOWTO for the kernel command
line setup.
Isn't arguing over this moot? I already said this is a reasonable
compromise because of the upstream kernel and initramfs-tools.
None of those other documents however will have root=nfs, root=nfs4 or
root=/dev/nfs4 examples. I object to more confusing variations like
this redundant to the preferred, full featured native syntax.
Or is this both of us arguing from our gut and we'll have to disagree
until Harald lays down the law about syntactic support?
Harald was in favor of removing the three "shortcut" variations of
Legacy nfsroot.txt. He also said I could go ahead and eliminate the
netroot= variations if I felt strongly about it. I do hope he would
make his own comments on this matter.
I will still push chopping either root= or netroot= NFS variations, but
only after we see what Harald decides to do for DHCP root-path for
remote block devices (his iscsi idea).
Warren Togami
wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe initramfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
