On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:19 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Jonathan Vasquez > <jvasquez1011@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Btw, for the first picture, it says that /usr is not mounted. I >> believe that is because my /usr in in /dev/mapper/arch-usr and that >> doesn't get mounted until later in the boot process. >> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Jonathan Vasquez > <jvasquez1011@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Is there any way to choose when to load specific stuff? In gentoo you >> could do this by selecting a runlevel by name (sysinit, boot, default, >> shutdown). I don't know if this is possible in Arch. > > imo, you're headed down a path that will just lead to frustration, and > is reliant on legacy models/codepaths. *why* do you want to avoid > initramfs? it's use enables the kernel to accommodate even the most > esoteric setups ... no gain in dropping it, unless you are using it > for embedded devices, and even then it's useful. > > the initramfs does some initialization of the environment, and the > various scripts that generate it try to include all sorts of stuff. > you may be seeing a black screen because the kernel verbosity is too > low or never set, or maybe you pulled a KMS driver into the initramfs > in the past ... difficult to know ... maybe udev was probing something > you forgot about. the kernel wants to be as dumb as possible about > the ridiculous stuff userspace wants to do, and i fully expect the > kernel to be dumbed down even further ... i personally don't think the > user should have an [official] choice to drop initramfs; IIRC, some > modules can't even be built into the kernel because they are mutually > exclusive with other variants (symbol clashes), and userspace must > decide which should be included. > > what is the motivation exactly? my grub2 GPT partition is ~128MiB, > kinda big, but that still only represents 1/600th of my small, 60GiB > disk. what is the benefit you seek? recompiling the kernel to switch > from an ext4 to btrfs root sounds pretty annoying to me ;-) > > -- > > C Anthony Simplicity and minimalism would be what motivates me the most. If I don't need an initramfs to get my system boot up, why have one? I know the benefits that initramfs provides, but I don't need any of them. All I need my computer to do is start, find the kernel, boot my comp to the terminal or X11 (depending on my setup). My set up atm that lets me have GPT, GRUB2, LVM, all without needing initramfs, and future proofs me the need to move the physical partitions in the drive (not the logical ones inside the lvm) is: /dev/sda1 BIOS Boot Partition 32M /dev/sda2 /boot ext2 100M /dev/sda3 / ext4 2G /dev/sda4 Linux LVM (name: arch) Created in a (read most, write last order .. if it matters inside LVM) /dev/arch/swap 2G /dev/arch/usr 10G /dev/arch/tmp 10G /dev/arch/opt 5G /dev/arch/var 10G /dev/arch/home 500G 400G Free in LVM Pool -- Jonathan Vasquez
