On 03/14/2012 14:56, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite
>>> nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails, etc, etc,
>> There is nothing bad about initramfs. I think that you are misreading
>> the arguments above.
> Whatever the arguments may be, the whole discussion boils down to the
> fact that the only people who seem to have a "problem" are those that
> have a separate /usr partition and simultaneously refuse to use an
I refuse to use an initramfs as this point in time because I haven't had to
use one in the past 10 years to get my Gentoo installs to boot. Right now,
all three active Gentoo installs that I have (x86_64, Vbox, MIPS) boot
*fine* with a separate /usr and no initramfs. That, in my opinion, is not
"broke", despite statements made to the contrary.
It only became "broke" when individuals not involved with Gentoo declared it
to be "broke", and then back it up with use-case scenarios that are really
only applicable to their distribution of choice.
I'm not saying that I'll continue to not use an initramfs, but I would like
for some Gentoo-specific reasoning to be offered as to why we have to follow
along with this change. Constantly referring to Fedora or Freedesktop
websites for their reasoning doesn't matter to me. I don't use Fedora nor
do I use X11 (at least the server. I tunnel 2-5 X11 apps over SSH, however).
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."
--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic