1 |
Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600 |
3 |
> Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Michał Górny wrote: |
6 |
>>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 |
7 |
>>> Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>>> Michał Górny wrote: |
10 |
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 |
11 |
>>>>> Dale<rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
12 |
>>>>> |
13 |
>>>>>> Michał Górny wrote: |
14 |
>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 |
15 |
>>>>>>> Enrico Weigelt<weigelt@×××××.de> wrote: |
16 |
>>>>>>> |
17 |
>>>>>>>> * Micha?? Górny<mgorny@g.o> schrieb: |
18 |
>>>>>>>> |
19 |
>>>>>>>>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages |
20 |
>>>>>>>>> statically? |
21 |
>>>>>>>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? |
22 |
>>>>>>> Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then |
23 |
>>>>>>> put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 |
24 |
>>>>>>> minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an |
25 |
>>>>>>> initramfs and add it to bootloader config? |
26 |
>>>>>>> |
27 |
>>>>>> 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this |
28 |
>>>>>> before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. |
29 |
>>>>>> Reality check: |
30 |
>>>>> 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. See |
31 |
>>>>> tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). |
32 |
>>>>> |
33 |
>>>> |
34 |
>>>> My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger and |
35 |
>>>> it still adds one more thing to break. |
36 |
>>>> |
37 |
>>>> I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a |
38 |
>>>> garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. |
39 |
>>> |
40 |
>>> Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs |
41 |
>>> grow with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan |
42 |
>>> either. Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us |
43 |
>>> focus on actual work rather than fixing random breakages. |
44 |
>>> |
45 |
>>> We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of |
46 |
>>> bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to |
47 |
>>> satisfy the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for that. |
48 |
>>> |
49 |
>> |
50 |
>> |
51 |
>> The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> And I don't like binaries on rootfs. I don't want to have ones. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> So we're talking about taste... |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
Actually, we're talking about how things has worked so well for a VERY |
59 |
long time and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
> |
63 |
>> It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are |
64 |
>> being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't |
65 |
>> need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the |
66 |
>> recent so called "improvements." |
67 |
> |
68 |
> ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it |
69 |
> should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it forever'. |
70 |
> Of course, those times there were no such thing as an initramfs... |
71 |
> |
72 |
|
73 |
|
74 |
Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs |
75 |
doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. |
76 |
|
77 |
Dale |
78 |
|
79 |
:-) :-) |
80 |
|
81 |
-- |
82 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or |
83 |
how you interpreted my words! |
84 |
|
85 |
Miss the compile output? Hint: |
86 |
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n" |