On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Rich Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Michael Mol <[email protected]> wrote: >> AFAIK, neither genkernel nor dracut were expected to get tied to the >> Gentoo update process. Has that changed? > > We don't even update kernels as part of the regular update process, > let alone initramfs systems. > > In general you update them together. > > The only issue I could see is if problems arise if you have a > different version of udev in your initramfs than on your system. I > don't know if that actually causes problems. For the most part after > the system is booted the initramfs is done its job.
The most widely touted benefit I've heard for initramfs is its capability to ease system recovery in case, e.g. a critical filesystem refuses to mount. With recovery roles come recovery tools, which quickly extends network-aware tools and a security attack surface. Hence why I tend to feel that if an initramfs is going to become the go-to solution for bootstrapping userland, it's important to consider the difficulties of keeping the packed tools up-to-date; it's not just a bootstrap tool, it's also the first recovery option a sysadmin faces. > > If some package did need a kernel/initramfs/etc to be updated it > should be the subject of news or an ewarn unless it becomes routine > practice. I don't think we want the system to start touching these > things without operator intervention unless we make it really > bulletproof like they do on big distros (the only reason they can is > they have one-size-fits-all kernels and initramfs designs). Absolutely. -- :wq
