On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:21:11 -0400 > Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > I do not have an initramfs, do not >> > need one, see no need to have one and have not yet seen a valid >> > technical reason for why having one is ideal. >> >> It's not "ideal" (I don't think anybody has said that). Almost nothing >> is "ideal" in computer science. >> >> Maybe it's not enough for you, but I repeat: we need dynamic /dev >> trees, udev giveus that, the udev code lives in user space, we need an >> early user space => initramfs. > > I didn't say I don't use udev, I do. I too have cameras, USB gadgets > and a huge array of possible hotplug objects in the shops I can buy at > any time. udev makes that all work well. > > I don't agree with the assertion that "user space => initramfs". > > You obviously must start udev as soon as possible in the boot process. > For it to work at all, one of the minimum requirements is something > mounted at / containing udev rules. This can be an initramfs or a > physical disk or anything else that can possibly behave as a block > device. I know of nothing in the kernel that *requires* it to be an > initramfs. The code should be generic enough that I can mount whatever > I want, then do whatever I need to do within limits and finally pivot > mount the real /
The only simple answer I have is this one: if it is so simple, then it would work this way. It isn't. If I am wrong (and, of course, that is possible), someone will come out and do it, and you guys will be able to keep your separated /usr and no initramfs. But I really don't think so. But, please, prove me wrong. I would certainly be interesting to see another solution. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
