On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:20 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I agree. To me, an initramfs seems to be much more useful for a desktop > system than a server.
This particular statement I don't agree with. An initramfs, IMO, doesn't have much to do with your intended use of the system, whether server or desktop. It has a lot to do with how widely the kernel and its modules will be distributed - how many types of hardware you want to be able to run the system on. For most LFS uses, you're building the entire system for one machine and in that case, an initramfs or early boot options like it aren't really that crucial, because you're likely to build just the drivers you need into the kernel itself and so mounting root is no issue. But if you want to make your system bootable on a lot of different types of hardware without having a huge monolithic kernel, an initramfs becomes extremely important, which is why you see it in all the distros. On another note, if LFS is going to be moving forward with a number of these changes, it seems to me that you will be needing a lot more help than you currently have. What is your plan in this regards? JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
