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 <gentoo-user+bounces-60311-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>) id 1HKIYT-0000Nx-2W for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:20:33 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l1MIIntt026993; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:18:49 GMT Received: from desiato.digimed.co.uk (82-69-83-178.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.83.178]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l1MICrXi019979 for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:12:53 GMT Received: from krikkit.digimed.co.uk (krikkit.digimed.co.uk [192.168.1.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by desiato.digimed.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D0E38BAD for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:12:53 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:12:49 +0000 From: Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ramfs - is it necessary ??? Message-ID: <20070222181249.2747284e@krikkit.digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200702220408.23312.bss03@volumehost.net> References: <45DCCAED.40709@xvalheru.org> <200702211825.41801.bss03@volumehost.net> <200702220945.26551.alan@linuxholdings.co.za> <200702220408.23312.bss03@volumehost.net> Organization: Digital Media Production X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.7.2cvs62 (GTK+ 2.10.9; powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu) X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7260 0F33 97EC 2F1E 7667 FE37 BA6E 1A97 4375 1903 Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_VpcBq5UbXQ/+V6BcvFxTgUt"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 34ae3a56-b31d-4e9a-ad13-37006e862aa9 X-Archives-Hash: 3ae61773ab88252a6379dd09ab39bb01 --Sig_VpcBq5UbXQ/+V6BcvFxTgUt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:08:23 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > I am fairly certain I was still using my custom initrd (not an > initramfs) until 2.6.17 -- I'm fairly sure 2.6.20 still *supports* > initrd format, even if initramfs is preferred now. It does, I have a system that boots 2.6.20 using an initrd. It works fine and I don't feel inclined to get involved in initramfs voodoo just to change an already working system=20 --=20 Neil Bothwick Don't let the computer bugs bite! --Sig_VpcBq5UbXQ/+V6BcvFxTgUt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF3d0kum4al0N1GQMRAqACAKDICyhYbU3R2fRMN8/2j3BZarCx/gCeIO6Z kl9ZFWX63wZf5ye2ikZ6yv8= =gQ/1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_VpcBq5UbXQ/+V6BcvFxTgUt-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list