1 |
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Mark Knecht wrote: |
3 |
>> One interesting small point I got out of the docs that Neil pointed me |
4 |
>> toward: That since linux-2.6 we're all using an initramfs "The 2.6 |
5 |
>> kernel build process always creates a gzipped cpio format initramfs |
6 |
>> archive and links it into the resulting kernel binary. By default, |
7 |
>> this archive is empty (consuming 134 bytes on x86)." So it's a nit but |
8 |
>> no one should be saying "I don't use an init thingy" but rather "My |
9 |
>> init thingy is empty and has no jobs to do on my system". (Or at least |
10 |
>> that's my understanding...) - Mark |
11 |
> |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Hence it will not fail, right? Adding another point of failure is my |
14 |
> problem with this. As I have said before, when I was using Mandriva, |
15 |
> then Mandrake, the init thingy would fail on a regular basis. It is one |
16 |
> reason I left Mandriva. I got tired of the breakage and Gentoo didn't |
17 |
> need one. So, here I am, good or bad. ;-) |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Dale |
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
Dale, |
23 |
not enough info: |
24 |
|
25 |
If the init thingy is empty and if your kernel boots then it did not fail. |
26 |
|
27 |
If the init thingy is not empty and your kernel boots it did not fail. |
28 |
|
29 |
If the init thingy is not empty and your kernel does not boot we |
30 |
don't know what failed. Might be your init thingy, might be something |
31 |
else. |
32 |
|
33 |
I hope you understand I understand both your POV as well as your |
34 |
frustration. Maybe the work I'm doing in my thread will allow both of |
35 |
us to be more comfortable with init thingies. I'm going the opposite |
36 |
direction as you. I don't need one (on most of my home machines) but |
37 |
I'm going to add one on all my machines. It will become part of the |
38 |
way I maintain them all and hopefully I'll get more comfortable with |
39 |
the process. |
40 |
|
41 |
Cheers, |
42 |
Mark |