On 09/15/2011 09:04 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote: > Thank you for your response, however, I do have a few questions about this. > Where will this default initramfs actually need to be placed?
It should be similar to how sys-apps/v86d is used for uvesafb support. It installs /usr/share/v86d/initramfs and when you configure your kernel, you set CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE="/usr/share/v86d/initramfs" in order to have in included in your kernel image. > Also, how will > we be able to deal with situations where this script fails? It should drop you to a minimal shell. > If Gentoo does decide to follow the initramfs-route, why not simply implement > /etc/init.d/localmount in the initramfs? I think that's pretty close to what we have planned, since the plan is to have the initramfs mount configuration stored on the root filesystem. > Why require users to figure out which > filesystems are needed for udev? Simply mount all filesystems containing files managed by the package manager with the initramfs. Anything else would expose you to the possibility of unsatisfied dependencies. > Also, I was actually hoping for a reply to the rest of my email as well, > especially the idea for splitting udev into 2 seperate processes. In essence, what your doing here is playing a game of "let's see how long we can delay the mounting of essential filesystems". If you play this game, then again, you expose yourself to the possibility of unsatisfied dependencies. Therefore, the only foolproof approach is to mount all essential filesystems as soon as possible (via initramfs). > If someone can explain to me why my idea won't work, please let me know. If your goal is to expose yourself to the possibility of unsatisfied dependencies, they your idea will achieve it. -- Thanks, Zac
