Re: confused about initrd.gz vs. initrd.img
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:47:41 -0500,
Kevin Mark <kmark+debian-user@pipeline.com> wrote in message
<[🔎] 20040118094741.GA3436@debian.potter>:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 09:40:54AM +0100, David Baron wrote:
> > I, too, have a knoppix install which has an image of 2.4.22-xfs. I
> > installed this on ext2 partition originally, want to go over to
> > ext3, need an initrd to do so since the that image does not have
> > ext3 compiled in. I made an initird (cramfs) according to
> > instructions in the Debian Reference but it does not work.
> >
> > A suggestion was that since my Linux partition is not the first on
> > on the disk, the initrd fails. Since the message I get is FAT bogus
> > sector size 0, his is quite plausible. A non-initrd boot has not
> > problems with this at all.
> >
> > A suggestion was that I should make a .gz image rather than the
> > cramfs. Tried that but the loader would not eat it. Gz is not
> > compiled in either :-(. Debian apparently does support cramfs,
> > contrary to statements otherwise. The gz attempt did not panic but
> > was logged as an unsupported compressed type and the boot proceeded
> > without it. Still no ext3 journal running.
> >
> > (Why would an image have xfs and no ext3? My guess is that it might
> > just be in the name but have not xfs partition to try out on it.)
> > Initrd.gz vs initrd.img? These are also just names. I can make a gz
> > and call it img and visa-versa. The lilo should call for your file
> > name.
> Hi David,
> Mr. Knoppix made changes to allow for xfs among other things. I recall
> installing knoppix and then removing the 'initrd=' entry and it
> worked. This may not be true for the current one.
..AFAIR, Klaus Knopper calls his initrd.img " miniimage.gz " or
somesuch, check /, /KNOPPIX and /KNOPPIX/boot, I'm on a
temporary clusterKnoppix install.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: