Re: Building a 2.6.30 kernel that does NOT require initrd

[Andrew Perrin <clists@perrin.socsci.unc.edu>]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Alex Samad wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 05:46:47PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> >
>
> [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.
>
> I was just seeing if I was missing something, it just seems like a pain
> to have to recompile, although with all the tools thats easy.  Maybe it
> just me getting older, but I tend to stick to the path of least
> resistance.

Ironically I go with no initrd for exactly the same reason - I've never 
learned to build the initrd file, and it seems harder to handle the extra 
step. But given this hurdle I may just have to learn!

Andy

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J Perrin - andrew_perrin (at) unc.edu - http://perrin.socsci.unc.edu
Associate Professor and Associate Chair of Sociology
University of North Carolina - CB#3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 USA