Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:54:25
Message-Id: robbat2-20110810T214751-638095394Z@orbis-terrarum.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux by Dale
1 On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 04:42:04PM -0500, Dale wrote:
2 > For the record, I think /usr should work on a separate partition as
3 > well.
4 You're entirely missing the point of this thread.
5
6 > One reason, I would like to use LVM on all but my / file system.
7 > This is something I been fiddling with for a while. Thing is, if /usr
8 > has to be on / then there is no point in me using LVM at all. I don't
9 > want / on a LVM because that requires some sort of init* to work. That
10 > is what I am trying to avoid.
11 The final solution in this thread:
12 TL;DR version: If your /usr is NOT on /, you MUST use an initramfs.
13
14 More detailed:
15 1. If you want /usr or /var on separate partitions (not LVM or anything
16 elsewhere userspace action is required to make the block devices
17 usable), then the minimal initramfs (or something more capable) MUST
18 be used so that udev is happy.
19 2. If your /usr, /var, root etc block devices require userspace action
20 (eg LVM, MD, crypto, firmware etc). You MUST use genkernel, dracut or
21 some other initramfs of your own creation. The proposed minimal
22 initramfs WILL NOT handle these situations.
23
24 > My opinion, this is going to lead to one heck of a mess. If it is
25 > coming from upstream,
26 Yes, it's upstream, and their reasons are fairly valid: avoid circular
27 dependencies in startup.
28
29 --
30 Robin Hugh Johnson
31 Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
32 E-Mail : robbat2@g.o
33 GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr vs. initramfs redux Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com>