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 1SCkwc-0005Tb-Rl for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:57:15 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B0A9AE09D4; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:57:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664F1E086E for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:56:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbcuo1 with SMTP id uo1so1494186pbc.40 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:55:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tpTO1LJctGUio46pqWQDqh/Mn+PDQpMbGu76LTm7NUk=; b=hm/W5ny5Cjnhnw8bEPxu/FdX1mg1Do4PsQcj8+3T5Mi4KVtmc0GxKN4R70FUDY4Pk2 MLE3qwki3YyaCEthJY3h2rGVodudkGDiK6kb3nogK6+s809YsIEK48NHMSOkM6xykEfl uVwCjMT5VsO7s05hIxm1mTB3PbGf8Zgs6KawYGIVYgRtDxEzxaSCCMkIHFDTrNqfLh+Z +U49WdDu2WvDI/WEZHT2KUhR8FOd7YEOGcD9V3Ianpa2+eA4jxBmJJYtrB/Ru/Mcgrpk lcHPIn1F5q9tNp1bLHA7XDD3N9YBV4hmgvKUWhrC7YjNA58UvU0PgK2ZCBk1JSx1TZso wo+Q== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.203.74 with SMTP id ko10mr69343994pbc.125.1332910559549; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.221.103 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:55:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <01bf01cd0c9a$a2259000$e670b000$@kutulu.org> References: <20120327133728.GA3754@acm.acm> <01c301cd0c22$2fac1300$8f043900$@kutulu.org> <20120327142646.GB3754@acm.acm> <20120327154620.21440f87@digimed.co.uk> <86iphq0vza.fsf@jane.chrekh.se> <003e01cd0c53$a2e99b90$e8bcd2b0$@kutulu.org> <20120327212422.GA3437@acm.acm> <20120327234819.45111444@khamul.example.com> <20120327223544.GC3437@acm.acm> <01bf01cd0c9a$a2259000$e670b000$@kutulu.org> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:55:59 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs? From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: ef3394ae-0299-4589-88f2-dc84b395ed27 X-Archives-Hash: a06bc33e21487d6f49a7b7e1ccfa3bfb On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote: >> From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:acm@muc.de] >> >> Hi, Alan. >> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +0000 >> > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >> > > That is precisely what the question was NOT about. =C2=A0The idea wa= s to >> > > copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an initramfs - >> > > the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the SW in /sbin >> > > necessary to mount /usr. >> >> > Two words: >> >> > shared libraries >> >> > Copying binaries is not enough. You have to find and copy every shared >> > library those binaries use. Plus all the data and other files they >> > might need. >> >> > This is non-trivial. >> >> . =C2=A0It's equally non-trivial for initramfs, yet no= body >> seems to be raising this objection for that. >> >> Why is nobody else on this thread willing to take up its main point, the >> exact equivalence between the known, ugly, initramfs solution and the as >> yet half-baked idea of putting the same binaries into /sbin? > > Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered "ugly" > except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague, unarticulated > grounds. That notwithstanding: > > The binaries on the initramfs are not always the same as the ones install= ed > in the system; frequently they are statically linked versions, or > stripped-down versions, or otherwise unsuitable for being used after the > full system is booted. (Dracut, for example, forces you to add > USE=3Dstatic-libs to a lot of the packages it wants to put into your init= ramfs > image.) Putting those binaries into the execution path of the system is a > bad idea because you don't always them to run once the system has booted = -- > I want the full set of udev rules, not the bare handful that my initramfs > has on it. I agree with most of what you say; however, I believe you are mistaken about the static nature of the binaries in the initramfs created by dracut. I use dracut with the whole bang (plymouth, systemd, udev, you name it), and I don't have *any* of my packages compiled with "static-libs". Even more, my system right now runs everything with "-static-libs". I like to think (and, unless I missed something, that's in fact the truth) that my initramfs is actually more or less in sync with my running system, and I update it a lot, since it's trivial to do so with dracut. Outside of that, I agree with everything you say. Regards. --=20 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingenier=C3=ADa de la Computaci=C3=B3n Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma de M=C3=A9xico