On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Zachary Kotlarek <z...@kotlarek.com> wrote: > > On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote: > >>> To what end? I don't mean to be argumentative, but I really don't see why >>> people see a non-initramfs boot as an important or useful goal. What >>> features/benefits does it provide, other than you don't have to run cpio >>> one time when building your system? >> >> simplicity, mostly. Just never felt like something I needed for a >> fully working Linux System. > > > Thanks for the explanation. I think I understand now at least part of the > reason I'm on the other side of this. > > -- > > I can't imagine running a system without tools like LVM. Yes, there's a new > package to install, but when I add that package I can drop my usage of > fdisk/parted and all the older, less flexible disk management tools. I > honestly only ever use partitioning tools to setup somewhere for the > bootloader to live; I don't even bother to put an old-school partition map on > my other disks. > > So for me LVM is "simple" and systems that don't support LVM are more > complicated to use because the tools are out-of-date and limiting. > > -- > > Likewise I do a lot of VM-based work, and with KVM/qemu it's much nicer to > boot from a host-stored kernel and initramfs than to build an entire boot > system inside the VM. You also get the benefit of being able to update your > kernel and boot sequence once for all VMs, rather than in each one separately. > > So for me an initramfs is "simple" because otherwise I'd have to change 15 > VMs when I swap in a new virtual disk driver. > > -- > > Also note that you can store the initramfs separately from the kernel, so > it's not necessary to rebuild it when you update your kernel. > > Zach
When you put it that way, it does sound quite cool. I suppose as long as you kept block drivers compiled into the kernel, and the initramfs did nothing with modules, that it would never have to change between kernel updates. hmm, I'm liking this more and more. fancier bootup options, possibility of using uuid... I could go with that. I still like the idea, that it "adds" to lfs, as opposed to being "required" though. (And by that, I mean leave assumptions out of the bootscripts that this was booted on a initramfs/initrd) -- Nathan Coulson (conathan) ------ Location: British Columbia, Canada Timezone: PST (-8) Webpage: http://www.nathancoulson.com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
