On Jan 12, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> initrd/initramfs always felt more useful for systems that need to
> setup an environment before mounting root. Fun to learn, but not
> something I would want for my own system. I know we were saying that
> udev is expecting the environment s
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:32:49 -0600
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> There appears appears to be a movement to consolidate /bin and /usr/bin,
> /lib and /usr/lib, and /sbin and /usr/sbin.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I like this. I've started doing it on my systems. /bin, /lib and /s
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 03:32:49PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'd like to discuss the direction of LFS with respect to where upstream
> developers appear to be going.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
>
For the moment (I really don't have the
On Jan 13, 2012, at 1:50 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>>
>> If we don't add things like an initramfs to the book, we will probably
>> need to limit what our users can do.
Initramfs is widely used everywhere else, so at the least, even if it'
On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 15:32 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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 impl
On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 16:27 +, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 15:32 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> > 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:
>
> 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.
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/InitrdReplacementOptions
> http://en.wikipe
On Jan 13, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Matt Burgess wrote:
> I like the idea behind systemd, inasmuch as they are trying to speed
> booting up by using dependencies to allow scripts to run in parallel
> rather than Sysvinit's serial boot ordering.
Parallelization and the related speed is one of the talk
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM, James Robertson 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.
>>
>> htt
On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> If we do support it, I would also like an option for initramless setups as
> well.
To what end? I don't mean to be argumentative, but I really don't see why
people see a non-initramfs boot as an important or useful goal. What
features/ben
I assume that if you're using LFS to build an embedded system (I did
that a long time ago), you want to reduce boot times.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 19:17, Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
>
>> If we do support it, I would also like an option for initr
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
>
>> If we do support it, I would also like an option for initramless setups as
>> well.
>
>
> To what end? I don't mean to be argumentative, but I really don't see why
> people see
On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Kevin Lyda wrote:
> I assume that if you're using LFS to build an embedded system (I did
> that a long time ago), you want to reduce boot times.
To me an embedded system seems like the perfect use of an initramfs -- boot
directly from a ram-loaded image and never
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Matt Burgess wrote:
>
>> I like the idea behind systemd, inasmuch as they are trying to speed
>> booting up by using dependencies to allow scripts to run in parallel
>> rather than Sysvinit's serial boot ord
On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
>> To what end? I don't mean to be argumentative, but I really don't see why
>> people see a non-initramfs boot as an important or useful goal. What
>> features/benefits does it provide, other than you don't have to run cpio one
>> time when
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
>
>>> To what end? I don't mean to be argumentative, but I really don't see why
>>> people see a non-initramfs boot as an important or useful goal. What
>>> features/benefits does it
On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> I still like the idea, that it "adds" to lfs, as opposed to being
> "required" though. (And by that, I mean leave assumptions out of the
> bootscripts that this was booted on a initramfs/initrd)
I think that's a good design in general, even
I found these links interesting.
http://lwn.net/Articles/452865/
http://lwn.net/Articles/453004/
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Nathan Coulson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM, James Robertson wrote:
>> I'm with Nathan and Jeremy. As a long time LFSer, I would like to see us go
>> towards having our readers create an initramfs (not the older initrd). The
>> educational value is very high here. If we go this ro
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I found these links interesting.
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/452865/
> http://lwn.net/Articles/453004/
>
> -- Bruce
Yknow, I'd love to give systemd a chance.
--
Nathan Coulson (conathan)
--
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Timezone:
Hi guys,
> I'd like to discuss the direction of LFS with respect to where upstream
> developers appear to be going.
I've read the comments posted by other everybody else to date and there
are good reasons both for and against changing certain aspects such as
the initramfs vs. non-initramfs camp
On Jan 13, 2012, at 11:20 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I agree. To me, an initramfs seems to be much more useful for a desktop
> system than a server.
This particular statement I don't agree with. An initramfs, IMO, doesn't have
much to do with your intended use of the system, whether server or des
On Jan 13, 2012, at 10:43 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> For most LFS uses, you're building the entire system for one machine and in
> that case, an initramfs or early boot options like it aren't really that
> crucial, because you're likely to build just the drivers you need into the
> kernel it
On Jan 14, 2012, at 1:54 AM, Zachary Kotlarek wrote:
> While I agree that server vs. desktop is not the issue, you guys really need
> to try the modern disk management tools -- LVM or ZFS or anything similar.
> It's worth the hassle, I promise. Even if you decide you don't care on your
> system,
24 matches
Mail list logo
