Dnia 2013-09-25, o godz. 10:06:43 Thomas Sachau <to...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> William Hubbs schrieb: > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 02:55:49AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: > >> Makes me wonder if the "Why?" question should be left unanswered; I'm > >> also not quite sure if we can produce a short answer, can the actual > >> problem be summarized in one short clear sentence at all? > > > > I will try, but not in this thread. I want this thread to stay focused > > on the news item. > > > > Here is the updated newsitem based on feedback I have received so far. > > > > William > > > > What about busybox[sep-usr]? Is that still supported or is everyone with > separate /usr forced to use an initramfs? I'd say it's supported as long as it gives a compatible end result. I suspect that the number of cases supported by that is less than those supported by a complete initramfs. However, I'd say the support is mostly the maintainer's discretion. As long as busybox maintainers want to support that, it should work. But don't expect Gentoo developers to check whether that work or encourage users to use that. I think we used to call that 'early boot mechanism' in the past, but I guess just 'initramfs' is easier for users. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
