List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On 01/06/2012 07:10 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
> On 01/05/2012 03:40 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> The FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" existed long
>> before the relatively modern development of things like busybox and
>> initramfs made it more practical to use an initramfs as a recovery
>> partition. Anyone who wouldn't prefer to use an initramfs for their
>> "recover partition" probably just doesn't realize how well suited an
>> initramfs is for the job. It's so well suited for the job that it makes
>> the old FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" seem quaint.
> Please stop hailing to busybox. I think it's a bulk load of faulty, half
> implemented code that's not worth the time compiling.
> You can do better w/ the real tools. (Not my crappy little initrd
> script, but the well established, fully operational, as used to programms)
That seems like an awfully large initramfs to load into memory for every
boot, just to have it wiped from memory after switching to the real
root. It's fine as long as you're not trying to shave every last
microsecond off of your boot time though.
An alternative approach to a having a bulky initramfs "recovery
partition" like yours would be to put the content of a livecd/usb
recovery disk onto a spare partition, and configure your lean busybox
initramfs to mount that as the root if something goes wrong with your