1 |
Dnia 2013-09-25, o godz. 10:06:43 |
2 |
Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> William Hubbs schrieb: |
5 |
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 02:55:49AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
6 |
> >> Makes me wonder if the "Why?" question should be left unanswered; I'm |
7 |
> >> also not quite sure if we can produce a short answer, can the actual |
8 |
> >> problem be summarized in one short clear sentence at all? |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > I will try, but not in this thread. I want this thread to stay focused |
11 |
> > on the news item. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Here is the updated newsitem based on feedback I have received so far. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > William |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> |
18 |
> What about busybox[sep-usr]? Is that still supported or is everyone with |
19 |
> separate /usr forced to use an initramfs? |
20 |
|
21 |
I'd say it's supported as long as it gives a compatible end result. |
22 |
I suspect that the number of cases supported by that is less than those |
23 |
supported by a complete initramfs. |
24 |
|
25 |
However, I'd say the support is mostly the maintainer's discretion. |
26 |
As long as busybox maintainers want to support that, it should work. |
27 |
But don't expect Gentoo developers to check whether that work or |
28 |
encourage users to use that. |
29 |
|
30 |
I think we used to call that 'early boot mechanism' in the past, but I |
31 |
guess just 'initramfs' is easier for users. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Best regards, |
35 |
Michał Górny |