| 1 |
Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> * Micha?? Górny <mgorny@g.o> schrieb: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> > Does working hard involve compiling even more packages statically? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then put |
| 13 |
> more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 minutes to |
| 14 |
> recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an initramfs and add it to |
| 15 |
> bootloader config? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
Isn't it also a question of making sure the new "rootfs is initfs" metaphor |
| 18 |
will always work, which requires all the standard utilities, plus any admin |
| 19 |
stuff that might be required, to be available in cases of system-recovery? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The latter is already somewhat nebulous for a lot of people, which is why |
| 22 |
it's nice when distributions do it for you (traditionally by making tools |
| 23 |
available on the rootfs.) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Point is, those utilities all need to be kept up to date with any changes in |
| 26 |
the underlying packages, which adds another layer of complexity (and may |
| 27 |
require some static builds.) |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |
Archives