On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 02:37:13PM -0500, John Florian wrote: > Can this be improved? I'm sure it can be. I'm genuinely curious > what dracut does that an rpm couldn't ship. I'd also hate to lose > the versatility that we have at the present. I've been very > successful with what Fedora has offered, but I've always been scared > of autonomous nodes building/booting their own special initrd's and > hoping all just works. Hi, I think this discussion has gone further than intended. I'm not proposing Fedora changes the way initramfs is being done; it's way too early for this at this point. Rather, I was asking for making the packaging of kernel more flexible. One of the uses might the initramfs stuff, but this type of changes is generally useful for minimization, e.g. for VM images. I think other cases would pop up too. As to the question of the flexibility of dracut: it is flexible. But this flexibility is completely orthogonal to how the image is put together: if the image was built by installing some rpms, it'd still be possible to do whatever changes from a plugin after those rpms have been installed. Please consider e.g. how os-build does this (there was a nice talk at devconf). Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
