Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: [systemd‑devel] Splitting sd‑boot from systemd/bootctl for enabling sd‑boot in Fedora

["Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Lennart Poettering <lennart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 28.04.2022 um 10:33
in
Nachricht <YmpRSuc+GLrzvva1@gardel-login>:
> On Do, 28.04.22 10:25, Ulrich Windl (Ulrich.Windl@xxxxxx‑regensburg.de)
wrote:
> 
>> > Well, it sounds backwards to focus on the boot loader UI side of
>> > "recovery" so much if you don't even have any reasonably thing you
>> > could do in case of recovery better than a login prompt/shell...
>>
>> Well, not the shell, the tools are important:
>> Before systemd I could easily recover as system that failed booting (at
some
>> init stage), because I could easily mount the root filesystem and the
tools
>> were there.
>> With systemd I have a crippled minimum emergency environment where almost 
> all
>> required tools are absent (just es the real fstab is). That's one of the 
> first
>> and biggest frustrations with systemd.
> 
> That's a totally bogus claim. systemd has no control on the set of
> packages your distro installs or not. If you are missing some tool in
> your "emergency environment" (for whatever that is, systemd doesn't
> have a concept like that), then bring that up to your distro.
> 
> my educated guess is that your distro is providing some emergency
> kernel for you that comes with a minimized initrd? If that's the case
> it's purely the decision of your distro what to put in there and what
> not.

So are there any distros that have /etc/fstab in initrd?
Having to start mount units manually is just terrible when a simple "mount
/var" would do.

> 
> So you are barking up the very very wrong tree here. Go, complain to
> your distro instead, we have nothing to do with that.

OK.

> 
> Lennart
> 
> ‑‑
> Lennart Poettering, Berlin