initramfs - why not?
profplump at engineer.com
Mon Oct 31 23:47:41 PST 2005
On Oct 31, 2005, at 8:27 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Well, initramfs, not initrd. They are different:
> 1) I believe an initramfs is mounted earlier than an initrd would be
> 2) an initramfs would do more than just load required modules
> 3) there is no FS on the initramfs image (it's just a cpio-format
I'd argue that the difference between an archive mounted as a
directory tree and an actual file system is semantic at best.
> There may be more differences, but I can't think of them ATM.
You're right -- I didn't realize there was a difference. But none of
differences you highlight really change my point. Even if there are
no extra packages required for the initramfs there's still extra
maintenance involved in keeping it up-to-date. There's still the
initial work of setting up the initramfs directory tree with all the
required programs and libraries, and packaging it into an archive and
re-packing the kernel to include the archive. There's also extra work
every time I update any package which is in the initramfs -- instead
of just installing new binaries/libraries I now also have to re-
assemble and re-build the initramfs and re-pack the kernel.
> I'm not sure how there would be any maintenance, I guess.
Am I missing some script that assembles the initramfs for me? I don't
mean to be fesicious, but you are talking like there's a script in
the kernel that assembles the initial initramfs, occasionally checks
it against / for changes and automagically re-packs the archive and
kernel when something is different, and I really haven't seen
anything remotely like that. Did I just miss it somewhere? Am I
misunderstanding what goes into the archive?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1664 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the lfs-dev