On Monday, 24 June 2024 22:52:31 BST Dale wrote: > Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2024-06-24, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Michael wrote: > >>> On Monday, 24 June 2024 20:47:15 BST Dale wrote: > >>>> Have you seen this before? > >>> > >>> No, because I've never used dracut. > >> > >> I just had a thought. I have /usr on the root partition now. Do I even > >> need a init thingy? > > > > Same question as always: does your kernel have enough built-in > > drivers/modules to mount the root fileystem on /? > > > > If yes, then you don't need an initrd. > > > > If no, then you do need an initrd. > > > > I don't think where /usr is matters, does it? > > > > -- > > Grant > > My understanding, the whole init thing started with a bluetooth keyboard > or mouse driver that was installed in /usr instead of /bin or /sbin, > whichever one fits. I've always had /usr on its own partition until > this time. Mostly because it is easier to put /boot and root on regular > partitions and then put /usr, /var and of course /home on LVM. That way > as software like LOo, KDE and others grew, I could use LVM to grow them > easily enough.
You need access to the LVM tools to be able to access your /usr. I expect they will be under /usr - hence you need an early userspace with the required tools to be able mount LVM and anything in it. Alternatively, use btrfs and do away with LVM. > Given the merge of bin and sbin to /usr, I have no idea if a system will > boot without a init thingy or not. It won't boot without a initrd if /usr is on a different partition, because the OS needs commands available on /usr to boot with. Chicken <-> egg problem. > This is the first time I've > ran/installed a system with those merged. I'd think it would work but I > don't want to have a unbootable system to find out it doesn't either. With a merged /usr you will now also have /bin, /sbin, /lib, /lib64, all of them in /usr.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
