Re: [PATCH] linux-initrd: Introduce way to add more packages to initrd.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Tomáš Čech <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 06:09:12PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>Tomáš Čech <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> Ping after week - is there interest in this patch?
>>
>>I didn’t comment on the patch specifically because I thought my reply
>>might make you change your mind.  ;-)
>>
>>  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-07/msg01241.html
>
> Thanks for that, I'm still trying to digest that bite. I'm sorry for
> being a bit slow on Guile.

No problem.  Since you pinged, I thought you had digested it.  ;-)

>>All the packages used by the initrd are automatically part of the
>>initrd.  The proposed patch would allow people to add unused packages to
>>the initrd.
>
> It is for the packages which you may want to use interactivelly in
> case of failure or for some extra initrd hacking you may not want/be
> able to write in Guile.
>
> Features like
> - extra authentication
> - full disk encryption
> - root on NFS
> - LVM :)
> - ...

OK but if you need these packages, for instance because you have a LUKS
boot device, they’ll already be in the initrd.  No need to manually list
them in #:extra-packages.

>>Could you explain how/when this would be used?  Maybe as commands for
>>use by Bournish when it’s used as a rescue shell?
>
> I agree that it is more for debugging and to balance my inability to
> express it in Guile but it lowers the barrier a bit.
>
> Bournish is too young to rely on it. I miss pipes, accessing files in
> different directories or `ls' with wildcards. I can put in minimal
> static busybox which is more than sufficient for rescue, problem
> analysis or even data recovery.
>
> I like the idea of Bournish but I'd rather have an alternative
> until it is more capable.

I agree, but hopefully, you don’t run into Bournish too often?

I guess my main concern (again, as a lazy maintainer) is the cost of
turning ‘base-initrd’ into a kitchen sink, as discussed in the other
thread about #:extra-modules.

I would prefer to provide simple tools that people can build upon, like
‘expression->initrd’ or the ‘raw-initrd’ procedure I proposed, than
trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all procedure with many
parameters.

WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo’.