| 1 |
yes i use / on LVM. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
i just cannot understand why the busybox in the initramfs that |
| 4 |
genkernel generates works fine, while mine reports error. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
> On Monday 07 December 2009 03:00:29 Xi Shen wrote: |
| 9 |
>> yes, i installed busybox into the initramfs i created my self. because |
| 10 |
>> i see the initramfs generated by genkernel uses it. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> i am using LVM, so i have to use a initramfs. are you suggesting that |
| 13 |
>> i should install all the GNU utilities into the initramfs? i think |
| 14 |
>> that would create a very large initramfs file. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Do you mean / on LVM? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Personally, I don't trust busybox on full scale installs, or on anything |
| 19 |
> that's not embedded. Busybox necessarily omits certain features to keep the |
| 20 |
> size and simplicity down whereas boot utilities are too often written for GNU |
| 21 |
> tools. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> |
| 27 |
> wrote: |
| 28 |
>> > On Friday 04 December 2009 17:25:21 Alex Schuster wrote: |
| 29 |
>> >> Xi Shen writes: |
| 30 |
>> >> > when i boot my system, at the step "Wiping /tmp", it pops up an error |
| 31 |
>> >> > message saying that the find command do not support the '-uid' option. |
| 32 |
>> >> > in the error message, i also see the busybox mark. it looks like it |
| 33 |
>> >> > used the wrong find command. |
| 34 |
>> >> |
| 35 |
>> >> Did you emerge busybox with the make-symlinks USE flag? When your |
| 36 |
>> >> original find is replaced by a link to busybox. |
| 37 |
>> > |
| 38 |
>> > That's unlikely. His box will likely not boot if he did that. If it does |
| 39 |
>> > boot it certainly will not emerge anything. Portage relies on features |
| 40 |
>> > that are present in GNU utilities and are not there in busybox |
| 41 |
>> > |
| 42 |
>> >> Don't know what to do exactly, most probably many other commands will |
| 43 |
>> >> also not work as expected, I guess you need to re-emerge all stuff that |
| 44 |
>> >> provides them, like findutils. There was a thread recently, look for |
| 45 |
>> >> "/bin contains busybox executables after installing busybox-1.13.2" by |
| 46 |
>> >> Amit Dor- Shifer on 2009-11-25. |
| 47 |
>> > |
| 48 |
>> > He likely installed busybox into the initramfs instead of GNU utilities. |
| 49 |
>> > |
| 50 |
>> > initramfs on gentoo is not a technique I recommend. It is designed for a |
| 51 |
>> > general use-case not present in Gentoo[1], and a very few specific cases |
| 52 |
>> > where an initramfs-less setup cannot work[2[ |
| 53 |
>> > |
| 54 |
>> > [1] Binary distros cannot know upfront what the end-user has |
| 55 |
>> > hardware-wise, so cannot build drivers for everything imaginable into the |
| 56 |
>> > kernel. An initramfs is an elegant solution, but one which is overkill |
| 57 |
>> > for Gentoo (the initial statement is usually false) |
| 58 |
>> > |
| 59 |
>> > [2] Some specific boot scenarios require an initramfs even on Gentoo - |
| 60 |
>> > booting off raided volumes where drivers are needed at boot time, |
| 61 |
>> > encrypted / volumes, / on an LVM volume and a few others |
| 62 |
>> > |
| 63 |
>> > In almost all other cases it is simpler and easier to dispense with the |
| 64 |
>> > initramfs and build two drivers into the kernel. After all, the user in |
| 65 |
>> > all probability knows exactly what hardware they have |
| 66 |
>> > |
| 67 |
>> > |
| 68 |
>> > -- |
| 69 |
>> > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
| 70 |
>> |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> -- |
| 73 |
> alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
| 74 |
> |
| 75 |
> |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
-- |
| 80 |
Best Regards, |
| 81 |
David Shen |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
http://twitter.com/davidshen84/ |
| 84 |
http://meme.yahoo.com/davidshen84/ |
Archives