| 1 |
On 01/21/2012 03:45 PM, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 01/21/2012 01:34 PM, Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>>> It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are |
| 6 |
>>>>> being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't |
| 7 |
>>>>> need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the |
| 8 |
>>>>> recent so called "improvements." |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it |
| 11 |
>>>> should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it forever'. |
| 12 |
>>>> Of course, those times there were no such thing as an initramfs... |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs |
| 17 |
>>> doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> The old way imposes requirements that are no longer supported by |
| 20 |
>> upstream software. So, you basically have three choices: |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> 1) Use old software that supports the old way |
| 23 |
>> 2) Develop new software to support the old way |
| 24 |
>> 3) Use an initramfs or pre-init script to mount /usr if it must be on |
| 25 |
>> a separate partition |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> So the solution is to break things because things are broken. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Well, option 2 means that people have to step up write software that |
| 31 |
supports the old way. For most people, option 3 is probably the most |
| 32 |
practical route. |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Thanks, |
| 35 |
Zac |
Archives