[Buildroot] [PATCH] target/iso9660/iso9660.mk

Roberto A. Foglietta roberto.foglietta at gmail.com
Fri Nov 21 10:48:25 UTC 2008

2008/11/21 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
>> when the user choose to use INITRAMFS iso9660 double its size because
>>initrd is also copied in iso9660 but kernel has its own.
>>Index: target/iso9660/iso9660.mk
>>--- target/iso9660/iso9660.mk  (revision 24103)
>>+++ target/iso9660/iso9660.mk  (working copy)
>>@@ -55,12 +55,17 @@
>> endif
>> $(ISO9660_TARGET): host-fakeroot $(LINUX_KERNEL) $(EXT2_TARGET) grub mkisofs
>>+      rm -rf $(ISO9660_TARGET_DIR)
>>       mkdir -p $(ISO9660_TARGET_DIR)
>>       mkdir -p $(ISO9660_TARGET_DIR)/boot/grub
>>       cp $(GRUB_DIR)/stage2/stage2_eltorito $(ISO9660_TARGET_DIR)/boot/grub/
>>       cp $(ISO9660_BOOT_MENU) $(ISO9660_TARGET_DIR)/boot/grub/menu.lst
>>       cp $(LINUX_KERNEL) $(ISO9660_TARGET_DIR)/kernel
>>+ifneq ($(strip $(BR2_TARGET_ROOTFS_INITRAMFS)),y)
> the strip is superfluous (other patches of yours also do this. Don't.)

Ok, I just imitate the others code.

>>       cp $(EXT2_TARGET) $(ISO9660_TARGET_DIR)/initrd
>>+      touch $(ISO9660_TARGET_DIR)/initrd
> Sounds like this is not needed?

I strongly suggest to add the touch initrd because:

 a)  initramf takes a lot of time at each compilation so beta-testing
stage usually goes with initrd

 b) when you deliver the product you should turn on initramfs but then
menu.lst still reports grub should load initrd but if it does not
exist grub fails

 touching the initrd means: if you forget to modify menu.lst you will
not pay the fee to see your system unable to boot.

 The question: is there any condition in which touching initrd really
hurts somebody? I think the answer is no.

 Under this point of view touching initrd save time to skilled users
and make things work for those are not such skilled users


More information about the buildroot mailing list