From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RjMgp-00076t-56 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 03:11:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D7F2D21C053; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 03:11:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from spot.xmw.de (spot.xmw.de [176.9.87.236]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E28021C02A for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 03:10:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:6f8:1c00:1af::2] (cl-432.ham-02.de.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:6f8:1c00:1af::2]) by spot.xmw.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A82BC27FE9B27 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 04:10:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F07B7AC.8070007@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 04:10:36 +0100 From: Michael Weber User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111117 Thunderbird/8.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr References: <1325616625.7238.23.camel@TesterBox.tester.ca> <20120103190255.GA13817@linux1> <20120103191206.GP780@gentoo.org> <20120103200120.GB13936@linux1> <20120103212215.GU780@gentoo.org> <20120103230918.GA7247@linux1> <4F03A1AA.6070205@gentoo.org> <20120104091743.0e1cd91a@pomiocik.lan> <4F0440B3.4090500@gentoo.org> <20120104163734.07439f2b@pomiocik.lan> <20120104163315.GV780@gentoo.org> <20120104174742.11d7002d@pomiocik.lan> <20228.34930.732592.657243@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <1325698374.22213.10.camel@TesterBox.tester.ca> <4F050DA9.4060704@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4F050DA9.4060704@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 01049010-968f-4b62-a04a-5982a0ef4b27 X-Archives-Hash: e2920d91e4d4b9d22c6a7b1a3a031270 On 01/05/2012 03:40 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > The FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" existed long > before the relatively modern development of things like busybox and > initramfs made it more practical to use an initramfs as a recovery > partition. Anyone who wouldn't prefer to use an initramfs for their > "recover partition" probably just doesn't realize how well suited an > initramfs is for the job. It's so well suited for the job that it makes > the old FHS notion of "root filesystem as a recovery partition" seem quaint. Please stop hailing to busybox. I think it's a bulk load of faulty, half implemented code that's not worth the time compiling. You can do better w/ the real tools. (Not my crappy little initrd script, but the well established, fully operational, as used to programms) http://xmw.de/dotfiles/scripts/mkinitramfs.sh -- Gentoo Dev http://xmw.de/