On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Laurent Bercot <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15/05/2014 20:43, Jorge Almeida wrote: >> > > >> Anyway, I have both /command and /package in the hard-drive based >> system, and only /command in the initramfs. So, unless I'm missing >> something, setting conf-home seems the best solution. > > > The fact that setting conf-home to "" works for you is an artefact, > a hack that works by pure chance. It breaks slashpackage assumptions > and is not guaranteed to work in the future.
I suppose I must take a closer look at which assumptions are involved. > If you set your PATH to /command in your initramfs, and clear > flag-slashpackage, you will have no PATH security issues, and no > performance loss. This is the supported way of doing what you want. > <SIGH> > > >> Assuming that >> the symlinks in the hard-drive /command dir are up to date, is there >> any real inconvenient in hard-coding the paths in the binaries to >> /command rather than /package/* ? It seems the best of both worlds... > > > Some people want slashpackage but not slashcommand. /command is an > extension to slashpackage, that provides some benefits but is not > essential. > > Really, clearing flag-slashpackage for your initramfs doesn't hurt. > And if you want a slashpackage structure in your initramfs, then do it ! > Just copy the directory structure and the .../command subdirectories > with the binaries inside, and have /command be a bunch of symlinks. Maybe I'll put a lobotomized /package dir in the initramfs, with dir containing symlinks to /command/ (Not all binaries of the hard-drive /command are copied to the initramfs, only those that are really needed.) For example, for the execline package: am I right to assume that binaries must be accessible in /package/admin/execline/command/, and that this is the only requisite in order to be compatible with slashpackage, at least when statically compiled? If so, I can cook up a symlink based setup that will be easy to maintain and very lightweight... The > /package tree without the source/doc/randomcrap and the additional > symlinks won't take much space in your initramfs, you have that little > extra RAM, and you'll free it quite fast anyway. No, it won't get free, as I keep the initramfs as / all the time (hard drives are mounted under /slash) > > Or you could forego initramfs entirely, initramfs is useless. :P Nope :) My initramfs doubles as rescue system (of sorts, anyway) > Jorge
