On Thursday 12 January 2012 04:32:49 pm Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I'd like to discuss the direction of LFS with respect to where upstream > developers appear to be going. > > Currently we use sysvinit and udev as the basis of bringing up LFS. We > do not use an initd/initramfs or systemd. > > LFS now provides a good, solid, and relatively simple way of bringing up > a single system. It does not directly support any of these more complex > methods. The question is: should LFS add these capabilities? > > If we did decide to implement the capability for an initramfs and/or > systemd, I think we might need a whole new chapter in the book. > > One of the major purposes of LFS is to explain how the packages in Linux > fit together. > > If we don't add things like an initramfs to the book, we will probably > need to limit what our users can do. For instance, we will probably > need to require that /usr cannot be on a partition separate from /. In > the era of TB hard disks, that is probably not a big deal. It's hard to > find a thumb drive smaller than 16GB any more. Many organizations give > them away as promotional items. > > Any changes we decide to make do not need to be done right away. We are > What do you think? > > -- Bruce
>From a users/possible future contributor: I would like to see an initramfs supporting lvm/raid/encrypted root filesystem. Even if the "user" has to hack on it to get anything past lvm. Lvm is nice on the large hard drives. The hint from Bryan is a good start to provide an initramfs. Encrypted root filesystems is good for security as in if some one pinches your computer or you lose it somehow you are not giving up any of your sensitive information. As far as systemd...whats wrong with the present system? I am in process of building LFS/BLFS + lvm + trinity. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
