From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HKBRo-0005lj-MY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:45:13 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l1MAgwZ7010808; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:42:58 GMT Received: from ender.volumehost.net (adsl-69-154-123-202.dsl.fyvlar.swbell.net [69.154.123.202]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l1MAVZAm028218 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:31:36 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ender.volumehost.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A9214C29 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:08:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at volumehost.net Received: from ender.volumehost.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ender.volumehost.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 9D6ZTbniXTGZ for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:08:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from adsl-69-154-123-205.dsl.fyvlar.swbell.net (adsl-69-154-123-205.dsl.fyvlar.swbell.net [69.154.123.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ender.volumehost.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB1E103FE for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:08:23 +0000 (UTC) From: "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ??? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:08:23 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <45DCCAED.40709@xvalheru.org> <200702211825.41801.bss03@volumehost.net> <200702220945.26551.alan@linuxholdings.co.za> In-Reply-To: <200702220945.26551.alan@linuxholdings.co.za> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200702220408.23312.bss03@volumehost.net> X-UID: 9 X-Length: 2340 X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1487243.1oUo9CqbPK"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: d2708336-84d8-40cd-bd04-76fbada5ca5b X-Archives-Hash: fc6d131d6a9b4bd42185665ad8f36faa --nextPart1487243.1oUo9CqbPK Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 22 February 2007 01:45, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Thursday 22 February 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > On Wednesday 21 February 2007, "pat" wrote about > > 'Re: > > > > [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ???': > > First, I think the OP is confused between ramfs and initramfs.Not quite > the same thing... Yeah, I hoped I cleared that up with my first reply. > But the thread has become about initramfs so we'll stick with that I think this is more what the OP was concerned about. > And the OP should keep in mind that the initrd format was dumped many > many kernel versions ago and these days we use initramfs, I am fairly certain I was still using my custom initrd (not an initramfs)=20 until 2.6.17 -- I'm fairly sure 2.6.20 still *supports* initrd format, even= =20 if initramfs is preferred now. =46or the life of me, I always found it easier to get an initrd working=20 rather=20 than an initramfs -- the whole chroot/exec vs. pivot_root vs. switch_root=20 step always failed for me when using an initramfs (and the very same shell= =20 script worked as an initrd). Also, a script-made initrd is still just a=20 compressed filesystem, easy to deal with, but a script-made initramfs=20 (particularly one made by genkernel) is not just a cpio archive, it's a=20 series of them separated by some !!!!KERNEL_MAGIC!!!! strings in the middle= =20 of binary data -- nearly impossible to work with using standard tools. At least, that's been my experience, others may have found the process=20 easier. =2D-=20 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,=3D ,-_-. =3D.=20 bss03@volumehost.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'=20 http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ =20 New GPG Key! Old key expires 2007-03-25. Upgrade NOW! --nextPart1487243.1oUo9CqbPK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBF3WuX55pqL7G1QFkRAtDEAJ9mpS3QRI5IopoycVaIqasZmOAjWQCfYNQn E629b6VyF3duZeYj/4HZbMw= =HOKx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1487243.1oUo9CqbPK-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list