Nathan Coulson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM, James Robertson <jwro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm with Nathan and Jeremy. As a long time LFSer, I would like to see us go >> towards having our readers create an initramfs (not the older initrd). The >> educational value is very high here. If we go this route, we should >> probably update the kernel compilation instructions to help users go more >> module driven kernels than static. I have been module only with initrd for >> some time out on my builds. > > Actually when I posted, I was more on the "prefer no initramfs" side. > But reading these last few threads there seems to be a lot of interest > in such a setup. > > If we do support it, I would also like an option for initramless setups as > well. I agree. To me, an initramfs seems to be much more useful for a desktop system than a server. A well designed server does not really need X and the boot script requirement is relatively minimal and can start in about 15 seconds. I can see where a server admin might want to use sw raid, so it should be available to those users. > How well would it sit in BLFS in the post LFS section? I was wondering about that myself. Perhaps BLFS is the right place for it. If wanted, it could later be promoted to LFS later, but I think a little settling time in BLFS would be useful. I've been looking at dracut: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dracut It is a set of bash (not sh) scripts that create an initramfs image. I'm going to have to explore it a bit more, but it looks promising. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
