From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:22:00 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [git commit master 1/1] initramfs: update help text In-Reply-To: (Grant Edwards's message of "Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:39:58 +0000 (UTC)") References: <20100626054529.9E7CE81E0B@busybox.osuosl.org> <87aaqh38vi.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <87hbkp3sfz.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20100627205714.507b5439@surf> Message-ID: <87fx0739lz.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 >>>>> "Grant" == Grant Edwards writes: Hi, >> Or a directory containing the hierarchy of files/directories to include >> in the initramfs. Grant> You're right. I'd mis-read the help for the initramfs option. Grant> Doesn't that means you have to do one step of the build as root? Grant> I don't think I that's a viable option. Either that, use fakeroot or use the cpio target. >>> > But yes, providing a way to generate the cpio archive without building a >>> > kernel would be nicer. >>> >>> It works fine the way it is. What's the reason for disabling the >>> buildign of a cpio file source list? >> >> It was to fix bug #2119. Grant> I currently build with the initramfs option without having to build a Grant> kernel. Isn't there some way to fix bug 2119 without breaking a use Grant> case for existing users? Yes, we could make the: ROOTFS_INITRAMFS_POST_TARGETS += linux26-rebuild-with-initramfs conditional on the kernel being built or not, but why are we having both a cpio and initramfs target in the first place? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard