1 |
On Mar 28, 2012 1:17 PM, "Pandu Poluan" <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Mar 28, 2012 11:27 AM, "Mike Edenfield" <kutulu@××××××.org> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered "ugly" |
8 |
> > except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague, unarticulated |
9 |
> > grounds. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Check out the email from William Kenworth in this mailing list; he's |
12 |
having trouble with initramfs being a blackbox. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> As a (mostly) server guy, I much prefer using a whitebox. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I happen to have /usr on a VHD, so I don't need an initramfs for booting |
17 |
(that, plus my production servers are all udev-less). If push comes to |
18 |
shove, what I'll do is create a vestigial /usr in the root partition, and |
19 |
have it overlaid by mounting the actual root over it. |
20 |
|
21 |
That should be: "mounting the actual /usr over it." |
22 |
|
23 |
Rgds, |