> From: Neil Bothwick [mailto:n...@digimed.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:04 PM > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting > software to /sbin rather than initramfs? > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:35:36 -0400, Michael Mol wrote: > > > >> Don't forget boot-time X-based animation, too. That's an > > >> extraordinarily common feature of mainstream desktop distributions. > > >> And there will be other things, I'm sure. > > > > > > I don't get involved with those, but I'd hope something intended to be > > > run so early would have minimal dependencies, if any. > > > > There's a pretty firm distinction between what things get used for, > > and what they're intended for. The udev developers presumably were > > reacting to this when they decided to support an "anything goes" > > policy regarding plugscript behavior. > > > > And while I'm generally the kind of person to find unintended (but > > perfectly compatible with their spec) uses for things, I don't figure > > on being one to do so in my init sequence. That said, someone else > > will. > > I know what you mean, but here we are discussing something being used for > its intended purpose. If a bootsplash program is not designed to work > well a the start of the boot process, you have to wonder what it will be > good for.
splashutils, which is the package dracut uses to generate a boot splash image, has a lot of dependencies but requires they all be built USE=static-libs. Plymouth, which does animated boot splash, is a bit worse; it installs a few dozen files, about half of that data. Then again, if you're putting an animated boot splash image on your initramfs, I don't think you're all that worried about space :) --Mike
