> And here is where the "re-invent it poorly" comes in: Linux
> has shifted some of this work into the initrd or initramfs. My
> view is that the initramfs is a mess:
> - it differs between distributions
> - it is brittle to update (a complex build tool is needed)
> - it is redundant (needs to copy loads of files around. Maybe
> not an issue on the 100TB system you have, but the smartwatch or
> smartbulb builder might see it differently)
> - configurations are duplicated, hardcoded or non-obvious.
> - it is opaque - not easy to look in to with ls.
There's lsinitramfs :-). Also, an initramfs file is just a compressed
cpio-archive and hence, fairly easly handled with standard tools. I've
maintained my own for a while for an software appliance product intended
to run on arbitray hardware.
This message was posted to the following mailing lists: