On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 08:33:01AM -0500, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > On 3/25/2026 1:28 AM, Moteen Shah wrote: > >Remove runtime managers since ti-core-initramfs does not requires > >login and other services as it is being used as a read only > >image during the boot. Modules can be probed using the udev from > >initrams-module-udev, hence remove the init manager along with > >others. > > I don't think this is going to pass muster. We just added those in > to make the initramfs function correctly with the rest of the system > post boot. > > What is the more in depth reason you want to remove them? Are they > causing you a problem? > > I'll let Denys chime in more since he did the work to figure out > what all we needed to add in to make it "correct".
It's not really whether it's correct or not. Using busybox instead of systemd is also correct, but... Back when we were initially discussing adding initramfs last year, the topic of busybox vs. systemd as init manager came up - once PID 1 process starts by the kernel from initramfs, it doesn't change when pivot_root into the full rootfs. If PID 1 is busybox, later started systemd won't be PID 1 and that changes some of its behavior and causes complications, as I recall. It was requested to simplify things and use systemd as init manager in initramfs, even if the size would be larger than using only busybox. That's how ti-core-initramfs was originally implemented. Then systemd got upgraded upstream in OE-Core and it had some packaging and dependency issues, which blew up initramfs size significantly. Ryan changed the way initramfs recipe is done, but that inadvertently removed systemd and other default VIRTUAL_RUNTIME components. Eventually systemd packaging got fixed in OE-Core and we were able to re-add systemd. Here's the corresponding discussion on the list - there were no comments or concerns: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/topic/117180106#msg19431 > >Signed-off-by: Moteen Shah <[email protected]> > >--- > >This patch will help in reducing the size of the initramfs to about 7 MB's > >compressed and 25 MB's uncompressed > >Boot logs: https://gist.github.com/Jamm02/ebdb124064e253208ee479f46edf127f > > .../recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb | 4 ---- > > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > > >diff --git > >a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb > >b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb > >index a9eff847..f496f21a 100644 > >--- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb > >+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/initramfs/packagegroup-ti-core-initramfs.bb > >@@ -11,10 +11,6 @@ TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES ?= "" > > RDEPENDS:${PN} += "\ > > ${TI_CORE_INITRAMFS_KERNEL_MODULES} \ > > ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_base-utils} \ > >- ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_login_manager} \ > >- ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager} \ > >- ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_dev_manager} \ > >- ${VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_update-alternatives} \ > > netbase \ > > base-files \ > > base-passwd \
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#19829): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/19829 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/118497229/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
