Stephan Seitz <stse+deb...@fsing.rootsland.net> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:25:07AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>I guess mounting /usr is no more complicated than mounting / in
>>initramfs. Finding out what modules and software is needed for that
>>should be the same code as for /.
>
> That depends. I have some systems where all file systems except /boot
> are encrypted. Since I donât use Debian kernels and initramfs, I
> created a small one myself to ask for the /-partition password. Now I
> would have to put the whole LVM stuff into it, because /usr is on a
> LVM (/ is not).
>
> So it is more complicated.
More complicated for YOUR setup. Not for initramfs-tools in general.
What I mean is that there are already plenty of systems out there that
have / on LVM. Initramfs-tools already knows when and how to include
lvm.
>>One more reason to get away from udev. :)
>
> Yes, I think too, that udev sucks. Instead of merging / and /usr, udev
> should be enhanced to support runlevels (at least the difference
> between the early boot stage / single user and the multiuser
> mode). There is no need to configure the sound card mixer at the early
> boot stage, and so forcing the user to have /usr on the /-partition.
Hmm, adding the runlevel to the environment should be rather trivial.
Couldn't you even add a rule (first rule to run) to query init for the
runlevel and export it to the environment? And the rule that triggers
configuring the soundcard could then match on the variable.
This idea doesn't sound like it will need changes in udev itself. Just
some configuration.
> Shade and sweet water!
>
> Stephan
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87pqfzdnlb.fsf@frosties.localnet
