On 2013-08-20 8:22 AM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:10:21 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Not really, because make is intelligent enough to no bother
recompiling anything for which the source has not changed.
True, but why recompile the kernel just to redo the initramfs?
As mentioned, I don't update/recompile the kernel as often.
"genkernel" puts the initramfs where it needs to be, kernel-make
doesn't.
That depends on your needs. The reason I do it this way is so that the
initramfs is locked to the kernel. Once that kernel boots, it will always
boot because the initramfs cannot be changed. If I make a change to the
initramfs, that's a new kernel and however broken it may be, the old one
will still work.
So, you're saying that whoever it was that said that some userland files
(that the initramfs 'refers to') could get updated, causing it to get
out of sync - and presumably causing it to fail to boot if/when you
rebooted - was wrong?
The main thing about this whole initramfs thing is, like Dale, I just
don't understand it. I understand grub and grub.conf. I understand
enough about compiling a kernel to be able to get it done and be
reasonably sure it is done right.
But if my system ever failed to boot because of a problem with the
initramfs, I basically would be hosed.
The kernel and initramfs are so closely coupled, it just seems sensible
to keep them in the same file, since neitherof them is any use without
the other.
See above...
