Alessandro:
> On 21/11/18 at 17:34, karl@??? wrote:
> > Alessandro:
> >> On 21/11/18 at 14:35, karl@??? wrote:
> >>> Hendrik:
> >>> ...
> >>>> Wait a moment. Haven't we already done this with /boot? Should we
> >>>> perhaps have /boot/sbin, and so forth?
> >>> /boot is a viable initrd replacement.
> >>
> >>   No, it is not.  An initramfs is needed to perform actions that must be
> >> done before the / filesystem can be mounted.  /boot does not solve the
> >> problem of accessing the local storage before it becomes available.
> > What is the problem you is pointing at ?
> >
> > To boot with an uefi system you need a fat partition available before
> > even the bootloader is loaded, so what is the reason that you cannot
> > use that instead of an initrd ?
>
>   I commented about the idea of using /boot in place of the initramfs,
> not about using the EFI partition for that.
>
>   You still cannot (or at least should not) do that due to the fact that
> that partition is reserved to EFI, you should not put foreign files into
> it, and initramfs are normally a Unix filesystem, a vfat fiesystem could
> well not work (would the kernel recognize /init as an executable file,
> for instance?).

You can always mount the fat with umask=000 or with showexec and name
the scripts/programs like .exe/.bat/.com.

I haven't tested using the fat for /boot, but you still have the disk
available. Adding a /boot partition isn't a biggie if the fat partition
doesn't work, or for the matter any other kind of partition, the disk
is available, and you have prooved it by loading the boot loader.

Regards,
/Karl Hammar

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden