On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600 Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 > > Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Michał Górny wrote: > >>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 > >>> Dale<rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Michał Górny wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 > >>>>> Enrico Weigelt<weig...@metux.de> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> * Micha?? Górny<mgo...@gentoo.org> schrieb: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages > >>>>>>> statically? > >>>>>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? > >>>>> Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should then > >>>>> put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to waste 15 > >>>>> minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), create an > >>>>> initramfs and add it to bootloader config? > >>>>> > >>>> 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this > >>>> before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. > >>>> Reality check: > >>> 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. See > >>> tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). > >>> > >> > >> My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger and > >> it still adds one more thing to break. > >> > >> I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a > >> garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. > > > > Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs > > grow with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan > > either. Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us > > focus on actual work rather than fixing random breakages. > > > > We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of > > bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to > > satisfy the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for that. > > > > > The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. And I don't like binaries on rootfs. I don't want to have ones. So we're talking about taste... > It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are > being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't > need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the > recent so called "improvements." ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an initramfs... -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
