| 1 |
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 3:06 AM James Le Cuirot <chewi@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 05:38:48 -0400 |
| 4 |
> Joshua Kinard <kumba@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Why do I not like an initramfs, though? Well, for one, it complicates the |
| 7 |
> > kernel compiles (and it makes them bigger, something which is an issue on |
| 8 |
> > the old SGI systems at times). Two, it's another layer that I have to |
| 9 |
> > maintain. Three, it violates, in my mind, the simplicity of keeping the |
| 10 |
> > kernel and userland separated (e.g., kernel does kernel-y things, userland |
| 11 |
> > does userland-y things). |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You make it sound like the initramfs has to be built into the kernel |
| 14 |
> image. It can be but it usually isn't. I suspect you know that though? |
| 15 |
> Admittedly that does depend on support from your bootloader. While GRUB |
| 16 |
> and U-Boot have supported this for years, I forget what oddball |
| 17 |
> bootloaders your hardware may be using. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Though he's likely not using it, GRUB2 supports all the platforms he |
| 20 |
mentioned (x86, amd64, sparc64, [sgi] mips). |
Archives