Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 > Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 >>> Dale<rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Michał Górny wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 >>>>> Enrico Weigelt<weig...@metux.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> * Micha?? Górny<mgo...@gentoo.org> schrieb: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages >>>>>>> statically? >>>>>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? >>>>> Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then >>>>> put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 >>>>> minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an >>>>> initramfs and add it to bootloader config? >>>>> >>>> 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this >>>> before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. >>>> Reality check: >>> 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. See >>> tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). >>> >> >> My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger and it >> still adds one more thing to break. >> >> I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a >> garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. > > Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs grow > with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan either. > Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us focus on actual > work rather than fixing random breakages. > > We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of > bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to satisfy > the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for that. >
The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the recent so called "improvements." Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
