Bootloader

[Werner Almesberger]

Andy Green wrote:
> I wonder if we need to get away from this enforced minimalism there, it
> is sort of U-Boot thinking.

:-) The basic idea is to have a small core system. Whether it's in
an initramfs or a rootfs shouldn't really make such a big difference,
since you should want to load most of that core system anyway. For
big extra stuff, one can always go to a regular rootfs, be it one
made just for booting or the "real" rootfs.

So ... if the core gets big, we spend more time to load it. Also, in
case we end up with space constraints (though it seems that will be
the least of our problems), it can't hurt to know with how little we
can get away with.

> Why don't we treat the alternate kernel and rootfs as made up of pieces
> from the normal packages (and libc / libs!),

Yup, that's how it should be. If the libraries get too bloated,
there's always uclibc, which seems to be quite well integrated into
OE.

> so we can re-use anything interesting (eg, wpa_supplicant) without
> a second thought.

That would be ideal, yes.

> That will also further regularize how you work with this alternative
> kernel + rootfs -- just copy files in the filesystem on the device, not
> regenerate magic initramfs images on a host.

Yes, that would be ideal. I'm a bit afraid of library bloat, though.
But we can start with a general system and optimize later, if
necessary.

- Werner