| 1 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> > As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start to |
| 6 |
>> > realize that the idea of "tiny partition that contains just what I |
| 7 |
>> > need to boot and mount /usr" is becoming "not so tiny" anymore. The |
| 8 |
>> > distinction between what is "boot" software versus "user" software |
| 9 |
>> > gets less clear. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Again, isn't this the same for an initramfs? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> No, because an initramfs only needs enough to mount / and /usr, then |
| 14 |
> everything else comes from the usual source. If you're not using and |
| 15 |
> fancy block devices, the initramfs only needs busybox and an init script. |
| 16 |
> Even adding LVM, RAID and encryption only requires three more binaries - |
| 17 |
> and those are all disposed of once switch_root is run and the tmpfs |
| 18 |
> released. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The question remains. If it's possible to do that from an initramfs, |
| 21 |
then shouldn't it be possible to put the same tools and binarias on /, |
| 22 |
and mount /usr early? |
Archives