17.12.2013 01:57, Laurent Bercot wrote: > >> And here the question: How is it simpler to maintain? squashfs is >> a read only file system, so you can't change things directly. >> Same as in initramfs: You need a copy of the root file system >> tree to put in your changes, then you need to create your new >> root file system (squashfs on one hand, cpio archiv on the other >> hand). Then you need to install your new root file system to the >> flash. How can you feel this being simpler to maintain? > > A real filesystem (squashfs or otherwise) is independent from the > kernel. This gives you more flexibility. You don't have to reboot to > test it in a real live working environment. You can develop it in an > emulator to avoid cross-compiling. You can copy the archive around > and mount it as is on another machine. You can keep your userland > firmware and your kernel entirely separate, and even perform live > firmware upgrades.
initramfs is no more different from squashfs here. It is not supposed to be kernel-dependent (or environment-dependent), and you dont need to reboot to test it. Guys, seriously, this (almost religious) question has been discussed so many times back when initrd has been introduced in kernel.. The same arguments are being repeated now. initramfs gives you flexibility. It is mostly due to this reason all general-purpose distributions adopted it. For a general-purpose machine there's no need to build its own kernel unless you use it in a very special environment or for some very very special task. Not using some mechanism for initial boot environment basically forces you to do so, unless you're using just a simplest configuration. And this is time to configure, build and test (with reboots!) stuff, which isn't cheap. If you don't need or like this, you're not forced to use initramfs. There's no need to re-iterate all this again after 10+ years. Thanks, /mjt _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
