On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:55:37 +0200 c...@chrekh.se wrote: > Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> writes: > > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:26:46 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > > >> > As you move more and more software off of /usr into / you start > >> > to realize that the idea of "tiny partition that contains just > >> > what I need to boot and mount /usr" is becoming "not so tiny" > >> > anymore. The distinction between what is "boot" software versus > >> > "user" software gets less clear. > >> > >> Again, isn't this the same for an initramfs? > > > > No, because an initramfs only needs enough to mount / and /usr, then > > everything else comes from the usual source. If you're not using and > > fancy block devices, the initramfs only needs busybox and an init > > script. Even adding LVM, RAID and encryption only requires three > > more binaries - and those are all disposed of once switch_root is > > run and the tmpfs released. > > The question remains. If it's possible to do that from an initramfs, > then shouldn't it be possible to put the same tools and binarias on /, > and mount /usr early?
Of course it's possible, it's merely a gigantic list of cd commands. The question is, is it advisable? I offer you two choices: a. Move a few commands into an initramfs, truly only the ones you really do need, or b. Move 7G of files onto / (i.e. everything) and lose any benefit you (and everyone else with different ideas to you) may want by having a separate /usr. Oh, and you get to deal with finding the hardcoded paths and fixing the code yourself. Those are your choices. Pick one. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
