On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 04:24:13PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 19:33 +0100, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 08:20:00PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > We're working on a kernel-module-standard for fedora-extras. I can > > > package unionfs and SqashFS then if that would be enough for the LiveCD. > > > But there might be a small problem with SqashFS and the initrd: > > > > A kernel-module-standard is a necessity for fedora-extras but not for > > unionfs/squashfs, IMO. They're small, and can be compiled on-the-fly, > > when creating the live cd iso. > > This is a non-starter. Allowing compilation of stuff adds far too much > of a "random" element with regards to what's on the system. I don't understand that sentence. A "mklivecd" program already has to: 1. create initial root 2. install packages 3. configure livecd system 4. create livecd initrd What's the damage of adding: 3b. make unionfs squashfs? > > > And I don't think the lack of support for a "squashed" initrd is a > > problem. I believe initramfs works much better for livecds, anyway. :) > > But you need to get the squashfs module into the initrd[1]. > > Jeremy > > [1] Using initrd as a generic term for either initrd or initramfs. Note > that Core has been using initramfs by default since FC3... this is one > of the reasons why I say that the changes for live CD at an > infrastructure level need to be better integrated. Peter has made some > changes in mkinitrd which will help make this easier and I have the > start of the changes for kadischi, but I probably won't get back to > finishing them up until after test1 Well, I'd expected the initrd/initramfs to be cunstom built, anyway. Specially for the part of searching for the livecd image (in a cdrom, nfs, hdd, whatever). And about current mkinitrd, isn't --preload=mod.ko sufficient? -- lfr 0/0 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
