Re: [gentoo-dev] Opinion against /usr merge

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote:
>>> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the
>>> Gentoo update process. Has that changed?
>>
>> We don't even update kernels as part of the regular update process,
>> let alone initramfs systems.
>>
>> In general you update them together.
>>
>> The only issue I could see is if problems arise if you have a
>> different version of udev in your initramfs than on your system.  I
>> don't know if that actually causes problems.  For the most part after
>> the system is booted the initramfs is done its job.
>
> The most widely touted benefit I've heard for initramfs is its
> capability to ease system recovery in case, e.g. a critical filesystem
> refuses to mount. With recovery roles come recovery tools, which
> quickly extends network-aware tools and a security attack surface.

The real benefit is that it allows you to mount any partition, if the
tools to mount it live in the same partition. Recovering tools can be
put in the initramfs, but I don't think nobody actually thinks that
this is the "most widely touted benefit". Again, citation please.

> Hence why I tend to feel that if an initramfs is going to become the
> go-to solution for bootstrapping userland, it's important to consider
> the difficulties of keeping the packed tools up-to-date; it's not just
> a bootstrap tool, it's also the first recovery option a sysadmin
> faces.

If you keep your initramfs synchronized (which is easily done with
dracut, for example), that problem goes away.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México