On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 14:42:47 -0700 Paul Rogers <paulgrog...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> If that's true, even with systemd, why is there any need to build an > initramfs for a known system? Paul, Just like you, I build everything I need into a custom kernel and avoid the need for an initramfs. One other reason people use initramfs is if they need udev services on boot, say, for a drive the kernel will not be able to find via a simple specification of root=/dev/X. I think people should not go through all the initramfs trouble just for LABEL= or UUID= functionality, but rather should just use PARTUUID= which the kernel natively understands. If Frans was using an initramfs, I assume he had some reason for doing so and that we had to work within that constraint. But, what really got me about Frans' case is why he could not bypass systemd with init=. Well, it turns out that won't bypass the initramfs which, at least for systemd systems, will still try and start systemd before things can be handed off to the init= executable. Systemd sure adds tons of complexity and it is scary to debug when things go wrong. I much prefer the traditional sysvinit. However, when I get some time, I think I might try runit and see how I like it: http://www.mikeperham.com/2014/07/07/use-runit/ http://smarden.org/runit/ Finit looks interesting too: http://troglobit.com/projects/finit/ FWIW, Gentoo has a comparision of the different init systems: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems Cheers, Mike -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
