| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:58:53 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Michael Weber <xmw@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Concern is to sustain the freedom of choice that brought me to Gentoo. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Please provide systemd as an option. |
| 8 |
>> And provide sysvinit/openrc as an option. |
| 9 |
>> Do __not__ make an initrd mandatory. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> And I'd like to have the freedom of having a clean rootfs and system |
| 12 |
> free of random static executables needed to mount /usr with random |
| 13 |
> filesystems. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Static linking is IMHO worse than making _initramfs_ mandatory. |
| 16 |
> Or maybe do you have method to force rebuilds of packages dependant |
| 17 |
> on static libraries? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Do you have a method to force rebuilds of the initramfs? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The argument you used against static linking was that my statically |
| 22 |
linked binary has a library with a data corruption bug and thus when I |
| 23 |
go to rescue my machine I might inadvertently delete everything. How |
| 24 |
is having the library in my initramfs any different (even dynamically |
| 25 |
linked?) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-A |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> -- |
| 31 |
> Best regards, |
| 32 |
> Michał Górny |
Archives