The reason the question keeps coming up about why not reuse the initramfs-
tools code is because by the design of Dracut, it looks like they're trying
to produce the exact same thing that we did, about 3 years after we wrote
that one. Judging by the git tree, it looks like the authors haven't
bothered to look at what existing initramfs' in distros already do.
(Something which I did extensively before writing it. It wasn't like I
*wanted* to do this, just that all of the distros were still using
pivot_root at the time and I'd recently attended a talk at OLS where we
were told this method of booting was going away)
My biggest concerns are things like the authors apparently not being
interested in klibc (initramfs-tools uses that to get a nice small shell
and for embedded cases producing initramfs' that are a fraction the size of
glibc, never mind glibc plus the userspace tools), their use of bashisms,
and the fact that they're starting quite far behind on different boot
Hmm, I wonder if it's worth writing an LWN article on initramfs-tools
pimping it a little harder? Anyone interested in seeing it?
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds