You are not logged in.

#1 2010-02-15 21:30:57

wooptoo
Member
Registered: 2007-04-23
Posts: 78
Website

Dracut vs. mkinitcpio-busybox

On brain0's blog ( http://archlinux.me/brain0/2010/02/13/e … /#comments ) someone suggested using Dracut instead of mkinitcpio-busybox. After reading their description page it seems like a good contender ( https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/dracut/ ).

Will Arch consider adopting it?

Last edited by wooptoo (2010-02-15 21:34:33)

Offline

#2 2010-02-15 21:43:04

Pierre
Developer
From: Bonn
Registered: 2004-07-05
Posts: 1,964
Website

Re: Dracut vs. mkinitcpio-busybox

Why? mkinitcpio works fine and at first looks simpler. (it seems also older)

Offline

#3 2010-02-15 21:54:19

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,839

Re: Dracut vs. mkinitcpio-busybox

I can't comment on your question - I'll leave that to the devs, if they read this - but I will say that there was no suggestion made about dracut. Someone posted a URL for dracut, with no suggestion, comment, question, or anything else. This is dumb behaviour IMO.

If you, or anyone else, thinks Arch should be using dracut, post a feature request in the bugtracker. Ideally, include your own POC implementation of dracut for Arch. Before you do that, you may wish to consider the amount of time that brain0 spent planning the new busybox-based initramfs structure, and the amount of high-quality work that he has put into implementing it.

Offline

#4 2010-02-16 17:10:52

wooptoo
Member
Registered: 2007-04-23
Posts: 78
Website

Re: Dracut vs. mkinitcpio-busybox

I'm fine with either dracut or mkinitcpio-busybox, and I think that brain0 did an excellent job. I just posted this here so that developers become aware of it.

Last edited by wooptoo (2010-02-16 17:12:58)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB