1 |
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 |
2 |
Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 |
6 |
> > Dale<rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> >> Michał Górny wrote: |
9 |
> >>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 |
10 |
> >>> Enrico Weigelt<weigelt@×××××.de> wrote: |
11 |
> >>> |
12 |
> >>>> * Micha?? Górny<mgorny@g.o> schrieb: |
13 |
> >>>> |
14 |
> >>>>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages |
15 |
> >>>>> statically? |
16 |
> >>>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? |
17 |
> >>> Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then |
18 |
> >>> put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 |
19 |
> >>> minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an |
20 |
> >>> initramfs and add it to bootloader config? |
21 |
> >>> |
22 |
> >> 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this |
23 |
> >> before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. |
24 |
> >> Reality check: |
25 |
> > 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. See |
26 |
> > tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> |
29 |
> My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger and it |
30 |
> still adds one more thing to break. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a |
33 |
> garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. |
34 |
|
35 |
Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs grow |
36 |
with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan either. |
37 |
Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us focus on actual |
38 |
work rather than fixing random breakages. |
39 |
|
40 |
We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of |
41 |
bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to satisfy |
42 |
the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for that. |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
Best regards, |
46 |
Michał Górny |