Re: udev in the initrd

hi rockers,

Benjamin Schieder wrote:

> Thomas "fake" Jakobi wrote:
> > just a short question besides - shouldn't we start udev in the initrd?
>
> package/blindcoder/rockinitrd does this already.

but it's not CORE'd - which means, Crystal is unusable for SCSI/SATA
systems ATM? i can't believe this!

to be honest, i dont' care much for the special (albeit sexy ;) stuff
like encryption of the rootfs and sshd coming up, i think it's utterly
important to integrate the starting of udev in the _default_ initrd
concept - which means, the current initrd concept has to die - now!

udevd needs sh - welcome to bloatland. udev sucks so bad, i wish we'd
just revert to classic /dev... but i guess that's a no-no for all them
hotplugging jerks. hey, wait, clifford, didn't you write a userspace
devfs once? maybe that can be re-animated? ;-)

i'll see if i can come up with something basic, maybe make the
encryption/network/mail stuff optional in the rockinitrd...

irritated,

fake