Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

[Harald Hoyer <harald@redhat.com>]

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.