On 19/08/13 22:20, Alecks Gates wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tanstaafl <[email protected]> wrote: >> ... > > Can someone please explain to me what's so hard and/or complicated > about making an initramfs? At this point in time it's extremely > simple for me, but I only manage relatively simple systems (although > I'd like that to change soon). All I do is add one extra line (for > example - "dracut -H --kver=3.11.0-rc6") to my kernel install > procedure. > > Granted, the only reason I have an initramfs is for the plymouth > splash screen (other systems aren't desktops) -- but from everything I > can see it's not too complicated otherwise. >
Ive had one employment threatening episode when a redhat system using initramfs wouldnt boot (my fault in fact, I got out of sync with initramfs/kernel version on the install) and it was an important server. Since then I eliminated them and surprise never had a failure until recently when I started using genkernel. So now I have mostly systems using initramfs, 3 customised, one of which will no longer hibernate to disk and I am suspecting the initrd. Its fine when it all works, but the question in this case is how many times do I want to crash the system trying to fault-find it? Its not that it doesn't work, or that its generally reliable but that its an unwanted/unneeded extra point of failure built around an extra workload. Distros like Redhat have specialists that do that, we dont and we are NOT competing in Redhats market space so "why"? I actually think working towards a read-only /usr is a good idea and am ambivalent about it being in the root, its the baggage thats being worked in alongside this thats the problem for me. BillK
