| 1 |
On 14 March 2012 22:51, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Oh, that's simple, separate-/usr-without-initramfs will not work and |
| 3 |
> will not be supported :) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
See, it's this "we're doing it this way because we know best and we |
| 6 |
say so" that upsets people. I'm trying to encourage everyone to get |
| 7 |
to the core reasons for having a separate /usr in the first place (not |
| 8 |
all of which are guaranteed to be mentioned on any specific wiki |
| 9 |
page), and logically analyse the potential disadvantages of using an |
| 10 |
initramfs in each situation. It may turn out that there are no |
| 11 |
disadvantages after all, but the analysis is still important, not only |
| 12 |
to make sure that "we"'re making the right decision, but also to |
| 13 |
persuade everyone else that it's the right decision. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Again, the fact that it works for some people today is pure luck, and |
| 16 |
> odds are, it really isn't, but it's really hard to determine this given |
| 17 |
> that the init system they are using doesn't provide a good feedback loop |
| 18 |
> for this type of thing. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Maybe it would be worth improving the init system to do so? Or maybe |
| 21 |
it wouldn't because using an initramfs is easier and has no drawbacks, |
| 22 |
but see above. |
Archives