| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Dustin C. Hatch <admiralnemo@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think the point is that users may have an initramfs (that they built |
| 3 |
> manually or using some tool besides dracut or genkernel) that makes use of |
| 4 |
> cryptsetup/lvm2 built statically, or perhaps they just like it that way, so |
| 5 |
> why take away that ability and make them change? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Presumably because it is harder to maintain? If somebody wants to |
| 8 |
maintain (proxy or otherwise) the needed changes to support the static |
| 9 |
USE flag my opinion is that they should be able to do so. They would |
| 10 |
need to be responsive on bugs/etc and not be a burden on the other |
| 11 |
maintainers. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
However, if nobody wants to step up and do the work, then those who |
| 14 |
are doing the work basically get the last word in how it gets done. |
| 15 |
That's just how things roll around here. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Besides, you could make the same argument about every binary in |
| 18 |
/(s)bin. Initramfs builders manage to deal with a dynamically-linked |
| 19 |
bash, so they should be able to handle lvm+cryptsetup. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Rich |
Archives