Re: [gentoo-dev] separate /usr without initramfs

[James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1557 bytes --]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 16:17:04 +0000
Michael Everitt <gentoo@veremit.xyz> wrote:

> On 27/10/19 16:12, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 3:06 AM James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org> wrote:  
> >> On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 05:38:48 -0400
> >> Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>  
> >>> Why do I not like an initramfs, though?  Well, for one, it complicates the
> >>> kernel compiles (and it makes them bigger, something which is an issue on
> >>> the old SGI systems at times).  Two, it's another layer that I have to
> >>> maintain.  Three, it violates, in my mind, the simplicity of keeping the
> >>> kernel and userland separated (e.g., kernel does kernel-y things, userland
> >>> does userland-y things).  
> >> You make it sound like the initramfs has to be built into the kernel
> >> image. It can be but it usually isn't. I suspect you know that though?
> >> Admittedly that does depend on support from your bootloader. While GRUB
> >> and U-Boot have supported this for years, I forget what oddball
> >> bootloaders your hardware may be using.  
> > Though he's likely not using it, GRUB2 supports all the platforms he
> > mentioned (x86, amd64, sparc64, [sgi] mips).
> >  
> FWIW, I do believe I saw LILO mentioned ..

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Early_Userspace_Mounting#Configuring_LILO

Phew. ;-)

Actually I was getting confused between initramfs support and device
tree support. I think every bootloader has supported initramfs since
forever.

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]