[blfs-dev] initramfs

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Tue Feb 21 11:30:59 PST 2012


Qrux wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2012, at 6:02 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 
>> For most distros, modules are the biggest reason to have an
>> initramfs -- plus the fact that they want a one size fits all
>> methodology.  In a way, this is the antithesis of LFS where we
>> generally build a custom kernel and rarely need an initramfs.
> 
> I agree that initramfs isn't necessarily good for LFS.
> 
> I wouldn't call kernel modules the "antithesis" to a "custom kernel".
> Those are completely orthogonal concepts.  Sure, LFS can advise
> people to build their own kernel, and, b/c LFS doesn't use initrd/we,
> LFS can suggest that people static build all the parts they'll need.

I wasn't saying that no modules should be used, just that the drivers 
needed to boot the root fs should not be modules.  Generally, that's 
only a handful of drivers.

> But, I think this is really starting to venture too far down the path
> of BLFS turning into a HOWTO for everything-linux-related...which
> probably creates even more time-pressure between LFS releases to keep
> BLFS "current"--which probably just results in more BLFS "lag".

Pretty much on point here, but the issue is more than a BLFS lag.  We 
start to lose focus on the purpose of the book.  I don't have a problem 
with a few things like a RAID intro or /etc/profile etc, but for many 
packages (e.g. apache, bind, samba, qt, etc) there are whole books 
written explaining how to use them.

I'll keep investigating to see if I can figure out a way to present this 
with the right balance.

   -- Bruce



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list