From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:10:34 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] initramfs: update help text In-Reply-To: <87aaqg452f.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> (Peter Korsgaard's message of "Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:02:32 +0200") References: <20100626054529.9E7CE81E0B@busybox.osuosl.org> <87aaqh38vi.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <87hbkp3sfz.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20100627093056.5635ce90@surf> <87aaqg452f.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <871vbs44p1.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Korsgaard writes: Hi, Thomas> Well, a cpio archive can be generated by Buildroot without having to Thomas> build a kernel, see fs/cpio/Config.in. What Grant was complaining about Thomas> originally was the fs/initramfs case. However, last time I tried Thomas> pointing CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE to a cpio archive, it didn't work. Peter> So what is the difference between initramfs and cpio? Just the Peter> integration with the kernel build for the first? Maybe the initramfs Peter> stuff should simply be a 'embed in kernel' question on the cpio package Peter> if the internal kernel build is enabled? Ok, looked a bit closer and noticed that the initramfs target doesn't actually create a cpio, but a command file for gen_init_cpio. Nevertheless, is there any advantage to use that instead of just creating a cpio archive (besides it not working for you somehow)? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard