| 1 |
Quoting Peter Hjalmarsson (2012-09-01 20:49:48) |
| 2 |
> lör 2012-09-01 klockan 13:46 +0200 skrev Amadeusz Żołnowski: |
| 3 |
> > I am definitely for (1). The extracted old internal Genkernel |
| 4 |
> > initramfs generator would need to be named differently for either |
| 5 |
> > case, for example: geninitrd, geninitramfs, genifs, genird or |
| 6 |
> > geninitfs. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Whatever you do, do NOT call it anything that reminds of initrd. |
| 9 |
> Genkernel has not been able to generate initrd/ramdisk-images since |
| 10 |
> 2008 and Dracut has never have had that functionality. And people are |
| 11 |
> really confused over what is what, so please, keep use only initramfs |
| 12 |
> to keep confusion to a bare minimum. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Right. Good point. :-) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> When it comes to the rest: |
| 18 |
> You make som valid points. I am convinced that we need to refactor the |
| 19 |
> code in Genkernel, but I am not convinced that we need the split. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If initramfs part is split, it can live with its own life. My vision is |
| 22 |
that Genkernel just wraps around and automates build of kernel, |
| 23 |
initramfs and updates boot manager configuration. If someone doesn't |
| 24 |
want that kind of automation one uses the Gentoo initramfs itself or |
| 25 |
Dracut. If initramfs is split the design is simpler. It would also |
| 26 |
ease maintenance for me, because since initramfs part is split off and |
| 27 |
everything is fine, I'd like to leave it and take care only of the new |
| 28 |
Genkernel and Dracut. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Amadeusz Żołnowski |
Archives