Re: [arch-dev-public] [mkinitcpio][RFC] a better fallback image?

Tom Gundersen

29 Jul 2012 29 Jul '12

10:18 p.m.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

It seems to me that a more useful fallback image, would be one that is generated at compile-time, rather than at install-time, and shipped as a part of the kernel package. This would avoid user errors, and mkinitcpio run-time problems.

This fallback image should contain the widest sets of hooks and modules so that it should work on any hardware and any setup (at least to the extent possible with our current hooks).

I put a PKGBUILD up on AUR[0]. Rather than making it part of the kernel package, I made it separate (at Thomas' request). At least this should make it easy to test without having to rebuild kernels. At the moment it simply includes all the hooks I could think of. If, in the future, we would like to add more features to it (e.g. pacman, arch-install-scripts or better networking tools), we should add mkinitcpio hooks to the relevant pacakges. Any thoughts? Cheers, Tom [0]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=61313

Show replies by date

Pierre Schmitz

30 Jul 30 Jul

9:55 a.m.

New subject: [arch-dev-public] [mkinitcpio][RFC] a better fallback image?

Am 30.07.2012 00:18, schrieb Tom Gundersen:

...

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...
It seems to me that a more useful fallback image, would be one that is generated at compile-time, rather than at install-time, and shipped as a part of the kernel package. This would avoid user errors, and mkinitcpio run-time problems.

This fallback image should contain the widest sets of hooks and modules so that it should work on any hardware and any setup (at least to the extent possible with our current hooks).

I put a PKGBUILD up on AUR[0]. Rather than making it part of the kernel package, I made it separate (at Thomas' request). At least this should make it easy to test without having to rebuild kernels.

At the moment it simply includes all the hooks I could think of. If, in the future, we would like to add more features to it (e.g. pacman, arch-install-scripts or better networking tools), we should add mkinitcpio hooks to the relevant pacakges.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Tom

[0]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=61313

It'll be better to make it a split of the linux package to make sure modules are compatible. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com

Tobias Powalowski

10:03 a.m.

New subject: [arch-dev-public] [mkinitcpio][RFC] a better fallback image?

Am 30.07.2012 11:55, schrieb Pierre Schmitz:

...

Am 30.07.2012 00:18, schrieb Tom Gundersen:

...
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...
It seems to me that a more useful fallback image, would be one that is generated at compile-time, rather than at install-time, and shipped as a part of the kernel package. This would avoid user errors, and mkinitcpio run-time problems.

This fallback image should contain the widest sets of hooks and modules so that it should work on any hardware and any setup (at least to the extent possible with our current hooks). I put a PKGBUILD up on AUR[0]. Rather than making it part of the kernel package, I made it separate (at Thomas' request). At least this should make it easy to test without having to rebuild kernels.

At the moment it simply includes all the hooks I could think of. If, in the future, we would like to add more features to it (e.g. pacman, arch-install-scripts or better networking tools), we should add mkinitcpio hooks to the relevant pacakges.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Tom

[0]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=61313 It'll be better to make it a split of the linux package to make sure modules are compatible.

As far as I understand covers it everything so no need to be compatible with the installed kernel. greetingst tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

Pierre Schmitz

10:09 a.m.

New subject: [arch-dev-public] [mkinitcpio][RFC] a better fallback image?

Am 30.07.2012 12:03, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:

...

Am 30.07.2012 11:55, schrieb Pierre Schmitz:

...
Am 30.07.2012 00:18, schrieb Tom Gundersen:

...
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...
It seems to me that a more useful fallback image, would be one that is generated at compile-time, rather than at install-time, and shipped as a part of the kernel package. This would avoid user errors, and mkinitcpio run-time problems.

This fallback image should contain the widest sets of hooks and modules so that it should work on any hardware and any setup (at least to the extent possible with our current hooks). I put a PKGBUILD up on AUR[0]. Rather than making it part of the kernel package, I made it separate (at Thomas' request). At least this should make it easy to test without having to rebuild kernels.

At the moment it simply includes all the hooks I could think of. If, in the future, we would like to add more features to it (e.g. pacman, arch-install-scripts or better networking tools), we should add mkinitcpio hooks to the relevant pacakges.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Tom

[0]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=61313 It'll be better to make it a split of the linux package to make sure modules are compatible.

As far as I understand covers it everything so no need to be compatible with the installed kernel. greetingst tpowa

Except it does not include the kernel itself. Modules without a matching kernel are not that useful. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com

Tobias Powalowski

10:16 a.m.

New subject: [arch-dev-public] [mkinitcpio][RFC] a better fallback image?

Am 30.07.2012 12:09, schrieb Pierre Schmitz:

...

Am 30.07.2012 12:03, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:

...
Am 30.07.2012 11:55, schrieb Pierre Schmitz:

...
Am 30.07.2012 00:18, schrieb Tom Gundersen:

...
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...
It seems to me that a more useful fallback image, would be one that is generated at compile-time, rather than at install-time, and shipped as a part of the kernel package. This would avoid user errors, and mkinitcpio run-time problems.

This fallback image should contain the widest sets of hooks and modules so that it should work on any hardware and any setup (at least to the extent possible with our current hooks). I put a PKGBUILD up on AUR[0]. Rather than making it part of the kernel package, I made it separate (at Thomas' request). At least this should make it easy to test without having to rebuild kernels.

At the moment it simply includes all the hooks I could think of. If, in the future, we would like to add more features to it (e.g. pacman, arch-install-scripts or better networking tools), we should add mkinitcpio hooks to the relevant pacakges.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Tom

[0]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=61313 It'll be better to make it a split of the linux package to make sure modules are compatible.

As far as I understand covers it everything so no need to be compatible with the installed kernel. greetingst tpowa Except it does not include the kernel itself. Modules without a matching kernel are not that useful.

Well something similar is provided by me since ages here: https://downloads.archlinux.de/iso/archboot/2012.06/boot kernel+initramfs greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

4288

Age (days ago)

4289

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

4 comments

3 participants

participants (3)

Pierre Schmitz
Tobias Powalowski
Tom Gundersen