On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:34:39 -0600 Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600 > > Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > And I don't like binaries on rootfs. I don't want to have ones. > > > > So we're talking about taste... > > > Actually, we're talking about how things has worked so well for a VERY > long time and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. And required a considerable amount of work which increases due to software getting more complex and users wanting more features. And I don't get 'the wheel' here? What wheel? I'd say we rather want to get rid of the useless fifth wheel. > >> 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." > > > > ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it > > should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it > > forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an > > initramfs... > > > > > Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs > doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. And noone is forced to update the system either. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
