Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:34:39 -0600 > Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:28:54 -0600 >>> Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Michał Górny wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:20:03 -0600 >>>>> Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Michał Górny wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:38:26 -0600 >>>>>>> Dale<rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michał Górny wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:14:52 +0100 >>>>>>>>> Enrico Weigelt<weig...@metux.de> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * Micha?? Górny<mgo...@gentoo.org> schrieb: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does working hard involve compiling even more packages >>>>>>>>>>> statically? >>>>>>>>>> I guess, he means keeping udev in / ? >>>>>>>>> Because adding 80 KiB of initramfs hurts so much? We should >>>>>>>>> then put more work just to ensure that admin doesn't have to >>>>>>>>> waste 15 minutes to recompile the kernel (if necessary), >>>>>>>>> create an initramfs and add it to bootloader config? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 80Kbs? You sure about that? I somehow failed to mention this >>>>>>>> before. I noticed it when I saw another reply to this post. >>>>>>>> Reality check: >>>>>>> 80 KiB is enough for mounting plain /usr and booting with it. >>>>>>> See tiny-initramfs (but I haven't tested it thoroughly). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My plan is to have /usr on lvm. I think it will end up larger >>>>>> and it still adds one more thing to break. >>>>>> >>>>>> I really wish someone would get a better plan. I think I see a >>>>>> garbage dump ahead with lots of Linux distros headed that way. >>>>> >>>>> Better plan how? LVM requires udev for some reason. Letting rootfs >>>>> grow with data unnecessary for a number of users is no good plan >>>>> either. Just install that initramfs, be done with it and let us >>>>> focus on actual work rather than fixing random breakages. >>>>> >>>>> We already usually have separate /boot to satisfy the needs of >>>>> bootloader. Then you want us to chain yet another filesystem to >>>>> satisfy the needs of another layer. Initramfs reuses /boot for >>>>> that. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The point is, I don't like initramfs. I don't want to use one. >>> >>> And I don't like binaries on rootfs. I don't want to have ones. >>> >>> So we're talking about taste... >> >> >> Actually, we're talking about how things has worked so well for a VERY >> long time and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. > > And required a considerable amount of work which increases due to > software getting more complex and users wanting more features. > > And I don't get 'the wheel' here? What wheel? I'd say we rather want to > get rid of the useless fifth wheel.
Actually, they are adding the fifth wheel. > >>>> It's funny how I never needed one before either but now things are >>>> being broken. It's not LVM that is breaking it either. I wouldn't >>>> need the initramfs even if It was on a regular partition until the >>>> recent so called "improvements." >>> >>> ...and your main argument is 'long, long ago someone decided that it >>> should match the same taste as mine, so it should be like it >>> forever'. Of course, those times there were no such thing as an >>> initramfs... >>> >> >> >> Then don't break that. Just because someone came up with a initramfs >> doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use one. > > And noone is forced to update the system either. > Oh, that makes perfect sense. Thinks for the showing of brilliance there. lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
