1 |
On 03/13/2012 05:14, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> |
4 |
> And besides, genkernel and dracut are automatized; they *are* the |
5 |
> simple (and proper, IMHO) solution. |
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
My contention is that I shouldn't need an initramfs loaded into my kernel to |
9 |
get my system into a minimally-usable state. I've been running separate |
10 |
/usr setups for 10+ years, and only now, such a setup breaks, hence my beef |
11 |
with Fedora's assertion that such a setup is wrong. And I'm not even doing |
12 |
anything fancy! No encryption, no lvm/evms, no software RAID (on x86/x64 -- |
13 |
MIPS systems run mdadm), plain ext3/ext4 filesystems. I *shouldn't* need to |
14 |
start including an initramfs in my kernel to work around this. |
15 |
|
16 |
make menuconfig, make <bzImage|vmlinux[.32]>[, make modules[_install]], then |
17 |
update the bootloader, is how I've done kernels for the longest time. This |
18 |
new approach makes the above command sequence invalid if under a separate /usr. |
19 |
|
20 |
From a technical perspective, my argument is a moot point and is easily |
21 |
remedied. But I'm making it from a more philosophical standpoint because |
22 |
what once was a working setup, however uncommon, is not any more, and that |
23 |
to me is broken. I've essentially lost some amount of "freedom" in my |
24 |
choice of running a Linux box. |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Joshua Kinard |
28 |
Gentoo/MIPS |
29 |
kumba@g.o |
30 |
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28 |
31 |
|
32 |
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And |
33 |
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." |
34 |
|
35 |
--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic |