1 |
Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:34:39 -0600 |
3 |
> Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Michał Górny wrote: |
6 |
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600 |
7 |
>>> Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>>> Michał Górny wrote: |
10 |
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 |
11 |
>>>>> Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
12 |
>>>>> |
13 |
>>>>>> Michał Górny wrote: |
14 |
>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 |
15 |
>>>>>>> Dale<rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
16 |
>>>>>>> |
17 |
>>>>>>>> Michał Górny wrote: |
18 |
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 |
19 |
>>>>>>>>> Enrico Weigelt<weigelt@×××××.de> wrote: |
20 |
>>>>>>>>> |
21 |
>>>>>>>>>> * Micha?? Górny<mgorny@g.o> schrieb: |
22 |
>>>>>>>>>> |
23 |
>>>>>>>>>>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages |
24 |
>>>>>>>>>>> statically? |
25 |
>>>>>>>>>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? |
26 |
>>>>>>>>> Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should |
27 |
>>>>>>>>> then put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to |
28 |
>>>>>>>>> waste 15 minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), |
29 |
>>>>>>>>> create an initramfs and add it to bootloader config? |
30 |
>>>>>>>>> |
31 |
>>>>>>>> 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this |
32 |
>>>>>>>> before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. |
33 |
>>>>>>>> Reality check: |
34 |
>>>>>>> 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. |
35 |
>>>>>>> See tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). |
36 |
>>>>>>> |
37 |
>>>>>> |
38 |
>>>>>> My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger |
39 |
>>>>>> and it still adds one more thing to break. |
40 |
>>>>>> |
41 |
>>>>>> I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a |
42 |
>>>>>> garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. |
43 |
>>>>> |
44 |
>>>>> Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs |
45 |
>>>>> grow with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan |
46 |
>>>>> either. Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us |
47 |
>>>>> focus on actual work rather than fixing random breakages. |
48 |
>>>>> |
49 |
>>>>> We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of |
50 |
>>>>> bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to |
51 |
>>>>> satisfy the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for |
52 |
>>>>> that. |
53 |
>>>>> |
54 |
>>>> |
55 |
>>>> |
56 |
>>>> The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. |
57 |
>>> |
58 |
>>> And I don't like binaries on rootfs. I don't want to have ones. |
59 |
>>> |
60 |
>>> So we're talking about taste... |
61 |
>> |
62 |
>> |
63 |
>> Actually, we're talking about how things has worked so well for a VERY |
64 |
>> long time and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> And required a considerable amount of work which increases due to |
67 |
> software getting more complex and users wanting more features. |
68 |
> |
69 |
> And I don't get 'the wheel' here? What wheel? I'd say we rather want to |
70 |
> get rid of the useless fifth wheel. |
71 |
|
72 |
|
73 |
|
74 |
Actually, they are adding the fifth wheel. |
75 |
|
76 |
|
77 |
> |
78 |
>>>> It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are |
79 |
>>>> being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't |
80 |
>>>> need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the |
81 |
>>>> recent so called "improvements." |
82 |
>>> |
83 |
>>> ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it |
84 |
>>> should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it |
85 |
>>> forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an |
86 |
>>> initramfs... |
87 |
>>> |
88 |
>> |
89 |
>> |
90 |
>> Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs |
91 |
>> doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. |
92 |
> |
93 |
> And noone is forced to update the system either. |
94 |
> |
95 |
|
96 |
|
97 |
Oh, that makes perfect sense. Thinks for the showing of brilliance |
98 |
there. lol |
99 |
|
100 |
Dale |
101 |
|
102 |
:-) :-) |
103 |
|
104 |
-- |
105 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or |
106 |
how you interpreted my words! |
107 |
|
108 |
Miss the compile output? Hint: |
109 |
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n" |