Michał Górny wrote: > 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...
Actually, we're talking about how things has worked so well for a VERY long time and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. > >> 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... > Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
