| 1 |
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 08:55:35 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote about Re: |
| 2 |
[gentoo-user] Re: Full disk encryption: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Dec 1, 2011 3:32 AM, "David W Noon" <dwnoon@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I have a working initramfs layout, but currently it is too large |
| 6 |
> > (>32MiB) for my /boot partition. The problem package is e2fsprogs, |
| 7 |
> > as it requires dynamic linkage and, consequently, a full-sized |
| 8 |
> > glibc. This sucks, so I need to patch the Makefile(s) to build a |
| 9 |
> > more sensible set of executables for an initramfs. |
| 10 |
[snip] |
| 11 |
> You know, Debian has an e2fsck-static package. Why don't Gentoo, I |
| 12 |
> wonder... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> That said, you *can* have an "almost-static" e2fsck if you compile it |
| 15 |
> yourself. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Clearly you have not tried this yourself. [I have.] |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The reason modern e2fsprogs no longer have the static option is that |
| 20 |
the Makefile logic has long been neglected for the static modules and |
| 21 |
they no longer build correctly to produce e2fsck.static. I am |
| 22 |
currently (on and off) building a patched Makefile to correct this, but |
| 23 |
the build is so convoluted that it is something of a chore. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Dave [RLU #314465] |
| 28 |
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* |
| 29 |
dwnoon@××××××××.com (David W Noon) |
| 30 |
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* |
Archives