On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:13:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> > wrote:
> >> I'll articulate a few. (i) The initramfs involves having two copies > >> of lots of software around. > > > > Lots? For most people busybox is enough! If you want encrypted > > filesystems on LVM over RAID that rises to a total of four > > executables. > > And anything they might conceivably link to. Not everything supports > static linking. Those four all have static version, there are no libraries in my initramfs. > Don't forget boot-time X-based animation, too. That's an > extraordinarily common feature of mainstream desktop distributions. > And there will be other things, I'm sure. I don't get involved with those, but I'd hope something intended to be run so early would have minimal dependencies, if any. > >> (ii) What's more, these two copies are often > >> different, one being built with static libraries, the other with > >> dynamic ones. (iii) This situation is not (as far as I know) yet > >> handled by Portage, which means in building such software > >> statically, you've got to save the dynamic version somewhere else > >> whilst you're doing it. > > > > That's wrong. For example, LVM builds dynamic executable plus the > > lvm.static file for use in the initramfs. > > That's exactly what Alan just noted in (ii), but perhaps portage > handles (iii) in the case of LVM. Exactly, there are static and dynamic files, all handled by portage. > >> (iv) > >> The initramfs requires a potentially long script to make it work. > > > > Mount /proc, /sys and /dev. > > Mount root > > Unmount /proc, /sys and /dev. > > switch_root > > Things look much simpler when you abstract away the details. You still > have to manage lvm, mdraid and whatever else is necessary for mounting > things. That's where 'potentially long' came from, I expect. > > >> I think that qualifies the initramfs solution as ugly. > > > > Only if you build the initramfs with USE="fud". > > FUD: "Fear, uncertainty and doubt" > > In short, three things which are important to rationally examine and > deal with on a case-by-case basis. Yes, ideally before you start spreading them instead of vague handwaving about initramfs being ugly and using "lots of files" (four only counts at lots when applied to wives). -- Neil Bothwick Loose bits sink chips.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
