Re: [RFC] klibc requirements, round 2

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Followup to:  <D52B19A7284D32459CF20D579C4B0C0211CB2C@mail0.myrio.com>
By author:    "Torrey Hoffman" <torrey.hoffman@myrio.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> My concern is with the minority who are using initrd, and in
> some cases a very customized initrd.  
> 

They can presumably use whatever they already do, except they'll make
it into a .cpio.gz file instead of an .img.gz file.

> The important thing, I think, is that it should be easy for
> less-than-guru level hackers to add programs to the initramfs,
> even if the program they want can't be linked with klibc.
> 
> This really comes down to: What will the build process be for
> these initramfs images?
> 
> By the way, is initramfs intended to supercede initrd, or will 
> they co-exist?  

Eventually supercede; it will let us pull out an amazing amount of
crud.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>