1 |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Mike Edenfield <kutulu@××××××.org> wrote: |
2 |
>> From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:acm@×××.de] |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> Hi, Alan. |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
7 |
>> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +0000 |
8 |
>> > Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> wrote: |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> > > That is precisely what the question was NOT about. The idea was to |
11 |
>> > > copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - |
12 |
>> > > the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin |
13 |
>> > > necessary to mount /usr. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> > Two words: |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> > shared libraries |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> > Copying binaries is not enough. You have to find and copy every shared |
20 |
>> > library those binaries use. Plus all the data and other files they |
21 |
>> > might need. |
22 |
>> |
23 |
>> > This is non-trivial. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> <silently screams>. It's equally non-trivial for initramfs, yet nobody |
26 |
>> seems to be raising this objection for that. |
27 |
>> |
28 |
>> Why is nobody else on this thread willing to take up its main point, the |
29 |
>> exact equivalence between the known, ugly, initramfs solution and the as |
30 |
>> yet half-baked idea of putting the same binaries into /sbin? |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered "ugly" |
33 |
> except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague, unarticulated |
34 |
> grounds. That notwithstanding: |
35 |
> |
36 |
> The binaries on the initramfs are not always the same as the ones installed |
37 |
> in the system; frequently they are statically linked versions, or |
38 |
> stripped-down versions, or otherwise unsuitable for being used after the |
39 |
> full system is booted. (Dracut, for example, forces you to add |
40 |
> USE=static-libs to a lot of the packages it wants to put into your initramfs |
41 |
> image.) Putting those binaries into the execution path of the system is a |
42 |
> bad idea because you don't always them to run once the system has booted -- |
43 |
> I want the full set of udev rules, not the bare handful that my initramfs |
44 |
> has on it. |
45 |
|
46 |
I agree with most of what you say; however, I believe you are mistaken |
47 |
about the static nature of the binaries in the initramfs created by |
48 |
dracut. I use dracut with the whole bang (plymouth, systemd, udev, you |
49 |
name it), and I don't have *any* of my packages compiled with |
50 |
"static-libs". Even more, my system right now runs everything with |
51 |
"-static-libs". I like to think (and, unless I missed something, |
52 |
that's in fact the truth) that my initramfs is actually more or less |
53 |
in sync with my running system, and I update it a lot, since it's |
54 |
trivial to do so with dracut. |
55 |
|
56 |
Outside of that, I agree with everything you say. |
57 |
|
58 |
Regards. |
59 |
-- |
60 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
61 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
62 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |