Message info
 
To:Arch Linux projects development discussion From:Tom Gundersen Subject:Re: [arch-projects] [mkinitcpio][PATCH] init: add timestamp at start of initramfs if binary exists Date:Mon, 7 May 2012 01:28:41 +0200
 

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 05:37:11PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
>> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
>> >> This will allow us to tell how much time was spent in the initramfs,
>> >> which might be good for working on optimizations and making sure we
>> >> don't regress.
>> >
>> > If this is accepted, I suggest adding the following install hook (call
>> > it "timestamp" or something like that) to the systemd package:
>> >
>
> I'd call it systemd. It's unclear what's going to happen with early
> userspace a year from now wrt systemd possibly invading it in some way.
> We may as well start now with something more generically named to avoid
> having to possibly rename it at some point down the road.
>
>> >
>> >
>> > #!/bin/bash
>> >
>> > build() {
>> >    add_binary /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-timestamp /usr/bin/timestamp
>> I'm very confused as to why we would call the binary something
>> different in the initramfs. Shouldn't we not screw around with the
>> name?
>
> I'm inclined to agree with this. The namespacing should stay.

If you want to think of this as "a hook that does systemd related
things", then keeping the name makes the most sense. I was thinking it
would be "a hook that records the timestamp, we just happen to use the
systemd implementation" and that we'd add other hooks if we wanted
more systemd features in the future.

I'm fine with the way you and Dan suggest though. Do you want me to
resubmit, or will you just change it when you apply it?

-t