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