Re: Building a 2.6.30 kernel that does NOT require initrd

[Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Alex Samad wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 05:36:38PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Alex Samad wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > question question to both of you guys, any reason not to use a initrd ?
> > >
> > > doesn't it limit your options a lot, I can understand a monolithic
> > > kernel - but a partial one ?
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 01:33:57PM -0400, Andrew Perrin wrote:
> > > > I'm using grup-pc, which is grub2:
> > > >
> > > > che:/home/aperrin# dpkg -l | grep grub
> > > > ii  grub-common
> > > > 1.97~beta3-1 GRand Unified Bootloader, version 2 (common files)
> > > > ii  grub-pc
> > > > 1.97~beta3-1 GRand Unified Bootloader, version 2 (PC/BIOS version)
> > >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > Alex,
> >
> > How does having an initrd prove more or less beneficial than not
> > having one?
> >
> > IMO I like simplicity and a straight forward boot configuration:
> >
> > 1. /boot/kernel
> > 2. /boot/System.map
> > 3. lilo
> > 4. modules (if necessary)
> >
> > No other components.
>
> My root is on a encrypted lvm partition can you load that with out a
> initrd ?
Good point :)  Initrd is useful for some applications, I just was not 
utilizing any of them, thanks.

> > Justin.
>
> --
> Into love and out again,
> 	Thus I went and thus I go.
> Spare your voice, and hold your pen:
> 	Well and bitterly I know
> All the songs were ever sung,
> 	All the words were ever said;
> Could it be, when I was young,
> 	Someone dropped me on my head?
> 		-- Dorothy Parker, "Theory"