| 1 |
Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 |
| 3 |
> Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 |
| 7 |
>>> Dale<rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> Michał Górny wrote: |
| 10 |
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 |
| 11 |
>>>>> Enrico Weigelt<weigelt@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 12 |
>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>>> * Micha?? Górny<mgorny@g.o> schrieb: |
| 14 |
>>>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>>>>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages |
| 16 |
>>>>>>> statically? |
| 17 |
>>>>>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? |
| 18 |
>>>>> Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then |
| 19 |
>>>>> put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 |
| 20 |
>>>>> minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an |
| 21 |
>>>>> initramfs and add it to bootloader config? |
| 22 |
>>>>> |
| 23 |
>>>> 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this |
| 24 |
>>>> before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. |
| 25 |
>>>> Reality check: |
| 26 |
>>> 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. See |
| 27 |
>>> tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). |
| 28 |
>>> |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger and it |
| 31 |
>> still adds one more thing to break. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a |
| 34 |
>> garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs grow |
| 37 |
> with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan either. |
| 38 |
> Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us focus on actual |
| 39 |
> work rather than fixing random breakages. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of |
| 42 |
> bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to satisfy |
| 43 |
> the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for that. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. It's |
| 48 |
funny how I never needed one before either but now things are being |
| 49 |
broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't need the |
| 50 |
initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the recent so |
| 51 |
called "improvements." |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Dale |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
:-) :-) |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or |
| 59 |
how you interpreted my words! |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Miss the compile output? Hint: |
| 62 |
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n" |
Archives