Rainer Weikusat:
...
> I'd be willing to put
> work into a more general solutions if this was of interest to other
> people than me.

Well people are interested in whining but no doing real work it seems
when I asked.

> For religious reasons, I refuse to use busybox for anything. I spent
> some years working with and fixing this code for an embedded system at
> the time when these were still fairly small. The corresponding product
> (not project) is long dead, hence, I'm rid of the associated
> problems. Unless I'm forced to, I'll never again touch this code(base).

Ok, I havn't seen thoose problems in my embedded things, but embedded
now can host regular devuan, and also the busybox situation might have
improved.

///

To solve this at a dist level, we need to assign people to maintain
. a separate kernel (not needing initrd) for a specific group of systems
. a slimmer init
. a fsck.ext4 (perhaps static)
. a mount (perhaps static) that makes it possible to mount /usr
. hwclock possible run after mount -a

Sound interesting ?

Regards,
/Karl Hammar