[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: / vs. /usr vs. fsck(8)

>>>>> Reinhard Tartler <siretart@debian.org> writes:
>>>>> On Mi, Okt 12, 2011 at 06:09:00 (CEST), Ivan Shmakov wrote:


 > AFAIUI Harald (the fedora maintainer for their initramfs tool
 > dracut), he dislikes having a separate set of tools in /usr and the
 > initramfs, i.e., he strongly favors putting glibc, bash, iproute and
 > similar utilities directly in the initramfs.  The main motivation
 > (again AFAIUI) seems to be behavioral consistency of tools between
 > early userspace and the booted system.

	Well, in the light of this, the original proposal now makes some
	sense.  Indeed, they've made their initramfs their new /, and
	now wonder why would they need two /?  Quite a sensible
	question, as it seems.  Still, I don't think that it's
	applicable at all to Debian.

 > On the other hand, Debian has chosen against that and relies on
 > klibc, ipconfig, etc. for early userspace and thus, the initramfs.  I
 > suspect the main motivations behind these decisions were portability
 > and size (please correct me and add references).

	If anything, I'd vote for the Debian way.

	And, I guess that makes Debian's initramfs and the system itself
	less interdependent, to the point that one could boot a system
	with a (kernel, initramfs) combination that's several revisions
	behind (or ahead) of the system proper.

 > I imagine it would be pretty challenging to improve the klibc based
 > tools to become feature-par and sufficiently behaviorally consistent
 > with their glibc based equivalents.  In any case, I think having this
 > in mind is relevant for deciding whether the various fsck(8)
 > utilities can or should go into the initramfs or not.

	I believe that should fsck(8) be moved to initramfs, there would
	essentially be no reason to keep the rest of the «big stuff» off
	the latter.


FSF associate member #7257

Reply to: