| 1 |
On 2013-08-20 8:22 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:10:21 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> Not really, because make is intelligent enough to no bother |
| 5 |
>>> recompiling anything for which the source has not changed. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> True, but why recompile the kernel just to redo the initramfs? |
| 8 |
>> As mentioned, I don't update/recompile the kernel as often. |
| 9 |
>> "genkernel" puts the initramfs where it needs to be, kernel-make |
| 10 |
>> doesn't. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That depends on your needs. The reason I do it this way is so that the |
| 13 |
> initramfs is locked to the kernel. Once that kernel boots, it will always |
| 14 |
> boot because the initramfs cannot be changed. If I make a change to the |
| 15 |
> initramfs, that's a new kernel and however broken it may be, the old one |
| 16 |
> will still work. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So, you're saying that whoever it was that said that some userland files |
| 19 |
(that the initramfs 'refers to') could get updated, causing it to get |
| 20 |
out of sync - and presumably causing it to fail to boot if/when you |
| 21 |
rebooted - was wrong? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The main thing about this whole initramfs thing is, like Dale, I just |
| 24 |
don't understand it. I understand grub and grub.conf. I understand |
| 25 |
enough about compiling a kernel to be able to get it done and be |
| 26 |
reasonably sure it is done right. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
But if my system ever failed to boot because of a problem with the |
| 29 |
initramfs, I basically would be hosed. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> The kernel and initramfs are so closely coupled, it just seems sensible |
| 32 |
> to keep them in the same file, since neitherof them is any use without |
| 33 |
> the other. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
See above... |
Archives