> But it still leaves you with tristate - instead of yes/module/no it's
> yes/yes, but don't put it on initramfs/no. However, dependencies become
> simpler - all you need is "I want this, that and that on initramfs" and
> the rest can be found by depmod (i.e. configurator doesn't have to deal
> with "FOO goes on initramfs (== old Y), so BAR and BAZ must go there
> (== can't be M)").
This is something I've wondered about and would like to ask for clarification
on: the relationship between the initramfs image and the kernel, build
process-wise.
How much of the build process for the initramfs will be integrated with the
kernel build? Since the kernel won't boot without a matching initramfs, I
take it that some kind of initramfs will be a kernel build target now?
There's been a lot of talk about having the source for a mini-libc (uclibc,
dietlibc, some combo) in the kernel tree, and other people saying we should
just grab the binary for build purposes. The most obvious model I can think
of for klibc staying seperate from the kernel is the user-space
pcmcia/cardbus hotplug stuff, but that DID get integrated into the kernel.
The klibc source/binary debate still seems to be ongoing, but apart from
that, will the build process for initramfs be part of the kernel build or not?
Rob.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/