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 1S7tNJ-00015Z-1T for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:56:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A478E0A52; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:56:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27785E0971 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:56:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F9001EC033 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:56:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F60E9C1.7050600@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:56:01 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120304 Thunderbird/10.0.1 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] Re: Let's redesign the entire filesystem! References: <20120311173355.GB6599@linux1> <4F5EA152.80604@gentoo.org> <4F5FE34A.4030609@gentoo.org> <4F6091CE.1050009@gentoo.org> <20120314144115.GA30606@kroah.com> <20120314145144.GC3200@ca.inter.net> <20120314150431.GA2033@kroah.com> <20120314150827.53dc8336@googlemail.com> <20120314152209.GA2157@kroah.com> <4F60D585.4050206@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 8b44d7c6-4fe7-42ec-8af1-e54be5318530 X-Archives-Hash: 2dfbd4d969293f120f8280be0cda1b67 On 03/14/2012 11:36 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 19:58, Matthew Summers > wrote: >> Why is an in-kernel initramfs so bad anyway? I am baffled. Its quite >> nice to have a minimal recovery env in case mounting fails, etc, etc, >> etc. > > There is nothing bad about initramfs. I think that you are misreading > the arguments above. Whatever the arguments may be, the whole discussion boils down to the fact that the only people who seem to have a "problem" are those that have a separate /usr partition and simultaneously refuse to use an initramfs. -- Thanks, Zac