| 1 |
On 27/10/19 16:12, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 3:06 AM James Le Cuirot <chewi@g.o> wrote: |
| 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 |
>> You make it sound like the initramfs has to be built into the kernel |
| 13 |
>> image. It can be but it usually isn't. I suspect you know that though? |
| 14 |
>> Admittedly that does depend on support from your bootloader. While GRUB |
| 15 |
>> and U-Boot have supported this for years, I forget what oddball |
| 16 |
>> bootloaders your hardware may be using. |
| 17 |
> Though he's likely not using it, GRUB2 supports all the platforms he |
| 18 |
> mentioned (x86, amd64, sparc64, [sgi] mips). |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
FWIW, I do believe I saw LILO mentioned .. |
Archives