Le 20/05/2016 14:37, KatolaZ a écrit :
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 02:24:07PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 20/05/2016 13:11, KatolaZ a écrit :
If you mean to run your live system with the cdrom as the root
filesystem, then the only drivers you need during the initramfs
phase are those needed to mount the cdrom, ie the iso9660 filesystem
and the drivers needed to access the cdrom, which includes the USB
stack in case of a separate cdrom drive.
You need a few more things for a generic live, e.g. support for all
the disk controllers, support for aufs and other union filesystems,
the full USB stack, and several drivers from the scsi/ bundle, which
are needed to deal with cdroms...
Yes, you must include everything needed to read the cdrom. It's
true it includes the scsi bundle and the USB stack, but not the disk
controllers. And support for union filesystems only if they are
needed to mount the cdrom ( don't see why). My own trend would be to
Because the minimal live uses a squashfs, which is mounted and
union-ed before init is called, AFAIK. The disk controllers are not
necessary (and in fact I have stripped them off from the microscopic
version of the initramfs), but might be useful if you want to use the
live image as a rescue cd, and boot into an existing / on your
drive. Not necessary. Maybe useful.
The disk controllers need to be on the live cd for sure, but why in
the initramfs?
rebuild the kernel with those drivers statically linked and boot
directly to the cdrom without and initramfs.
Oh, sure we could. But my point is to use standard packages from the
Devuan repo, without too much of customising/recompiling.
I was just thinking of a minimal hack: starting from Devuan's
kernel config, just change a few drivers' build-mode from module to
static. After all, do you think it's more of a hack than stripping the
initramfs? But I admit it's a different journey than the one you have
undertaken.
Otherwise we
could also recompile everything with uclibc, as done in other minimal
distro, and have a truly microscopic userland, but that would be
*another* distribution, not a Devuan ;)
Musl libc is already a serious challenge :-) Uclibc a nightmare,
too incompatible with glibc.
Sorry if I look harsh, providing recommendations to people who do
the real job :-) ideas come out of the conversation and I just like to
share them with knowledgeable people.
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
