On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> On 8/6/19 10:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > An initramfs is just a userspace bootloader that runs on top of linux.
>
> I disagree.
>
> To me:
>
> · A boot loader is something that boots / executes a kernel with
> various parameters.
> ·
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:39 PM Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> On 2019-08-06 12:28, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > > Arguing against this trivial (and IMHO, elegant) solution is tilting
> > > at windmills. Specially if it is for ideological reasons instead of
> > > technical ones.
>
> > Some of the solutions
On 8/6/19 10:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
An initramfs is just a userspace bootloader that runs on top of linux.
I disagree.
To me:
· A boot loader is something that boots / executes a kernel with
various parameters.
· An initramfs / initrd (concept) is the micro installation that runs
On 2019-08-06 12:28, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Arguing against this trivial (and IMHO, elegant) solution is tilting
> > at windmills. Specially if it is for ideological reasons instead of
> > technical ones.
> Some of the solutions I've seen tossed out in this thread are more
> complex than just
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 5:54 PM Grant Taylor <
gtay...@gentoo.tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
[...]
> > Arguing against this trivial (and IMHO, elegant) solution is tilting at
> > windmills. Specially if it is for ideological reasons instead of
> > technical ones.
>
> Please clarify what "this trivial
On 8/6/19 9:54 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
If it's computable it can be done, of course. Therefore it can be done,
currently. I don't think nobody has said it absolutely cannot be done.
>.<
So it sounds like it's a question of /how/ compatible / possible it is.
It seems as if there is
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 07:56:49AM +0200, Raffaele Belardi wrote
> On x86 system there is no lib32 nor lib64, everything is already under lib.
On 32-bit systems, everything is in /lib. On 64-bit systems,
everything is now in /lib64. I wonder if they're laying the
groundwork for the
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:54 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
> Arguing against this trivial (and IMHO, elegant) solution is tilting at
> windmills. Specially if it is for ideological reasons instead of technical
> ones.
>
++
Some of the solutions I've seen tossed out in this thread are more
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:38 PM Grant Taylor <
gtay...@gentoo.tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
[...]
> I don't have any current first hand experience with /usr being a
> separate file system without using an initramfs / initrd. So I'm going
> to have to take what you, and others, say on faith that it
On Tuesday, 6 August 2019 06:56:49 BST Raffaele Belardi wrote:
> Walter Dnes wrote:
> >I just updated Gentoo on my old backup machine, an 11-year-old Dell
> >
> > Inspiron 530 desktop, and there's no mention of profile 17.1 in either
> > "eselect profile list" or "eselect news list". I'm not
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 18:04:00 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > Don't you have to go through some extra hoops (a flag to the mount
> > command or something) to mount over a non-empty directory?
>
> Nope.
>
> I don't recall ever needing to do anything like that in Linux.
Fuse complain about this,
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:17:17 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > I've not checked lately, but policy was that if an ebuild change did
> > not result in differences in the installed files, there was no need
> > for a version bump. This avoids needless recompiling of packages.
> >
>
>
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:30:58 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
> > How will you make sure installations of the same binaries are
> > installed/copied in both underlying and mounted /usr/* fs and kept
> > in sync? By changing all affected ebuilds?
>
> I don't have an answer to this qustion. I've
13 matches
Mail list logo
