Hello,

> On 7 Jul 2022, at 15:49, Peter Müller <peter.mueller(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello Michael,
> 
>> Hello,
>>> On 7 Jul 2022, at 15:30, Peter Müller <peter.mueller(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Michael,
>>> 
>>> thanks for your reply.
>>> 
>>>> Hello,
>>>> Indeed we don’t need to ship them, we can generate them instead.
>>>> But that has of course some downsides, too:
>>>> * It is slow
>>>> * It is not entirely error-proof (out of disk space, out of memory, system being rebooted too early)
>>> 
>>> So I guess the first newly introduced line ("dracut --regenerate-all --force") of
>>> my patch is obsolete then, as the initrds are already there - we just need the directives
>>> for ARM.
>> Those should be shipped, too. Adding more size to the updater when shipping the same stuff multiple times.
>>> To my understanding, if dracut fails due to space/memory issues, the upgrade would have
>>> failed either way.
>> My point was that extracting the update would consume less memory. Disk space constraints still apply unless there is not enough temporary space.
>>> Do you want me to submit a v2 of this patch without the dracut directive? Or should I
>>> commit this straight to next, and you cherry-pick it into master?
>> We should either ship everything, or generate everything. I don’t think a mix is good idea.
> 
> agreed.
> 
> Then, this boils down to an "rm" statement on 32-bit ARM, and I will omit regenerating
> the initds - that's how Core Update 169 has been thus far, and there were no complaints
> whatsoever.
> 
> I will push this straight to next and get back to you shortly...

We probably don’t want this in next. That already has c170.

> 
> Thanks, and best regards,
> Peter Müller
> 
>>> Thanks, and best regards,
>>> Peter Müller
>>> 
>>>> I do not really have much of a preference. The only thing I want to say is that ARM needs to get their shit together and being able to load a regular image instead of asking for extra commands here - or build that into dracut.
>>>> -Michael
>>>>> On 7 Jul 2022, at 07:48, Peter Müller <peter.mueller(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello *,
>>>>> 
>>>>> to my understanding, we do not need to ship "linux-initrd" if we can easily
>>>>> rebuild those on the systems anyway. I would prefer the latter, since that
>>>>> keeps the update smaller.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This was also raised somewhere in the community a while ago, but I am unable
>>>>> to find the correspondent thread at the moment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How do we proceed here?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks, and best regards,
>>>>> Peter Müller
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://community.ipfire.org/t/again-with-the-file-system-full-core-169/8186
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Müller <peter.mueller(a)ipfire.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> config/rootfiles/core/169/update.sh | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> diff --git a/config/rootfiles/core/169/update.sh b/config/rootfiles/core/169/update.sh
>>>>>> index 3902e2d45..50f0bd8a4 100644
>>>>>> --- a/config/rootfiles/core/169/update.sh
>>>>>> +++ b/config/rootfiles/core/169/update.sh
>>>>>> @@ -150,6 +150,19 @@ ldconfig
>>>>>> # Apply sysctl changes
>>>>>> /etc/init.d/sysctl start
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +# Regenerate all initrds
>>>>>> +dracut --regenerate-all --force
>>>>>> +case "$(uname -m)" in
>>>>>> +	armv*)
>>>>>> +		mkimage -A arm -T ramdisk -C lzma -d /boot/initramfs-${KVER}-ipfire.img /boot/uInit-${KVER}-ipfire
>>>>>> +		rm /boot/initramfs-${KVER}-ipfire.img
>>>>>> +		;;
>>>>>> +	aarch64)
>>>>>> +		mkimage -A arm64 -T ramdisk -C lzma -d /boot/initramfs-${KVER}-ipfire.img /boot/uInit-${KVER}-ipfire
>>>>>> +		# dont remove initramfs because grub need this to boot.
>>>>>> +		;;
>>>>>> +esac
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> # Start services
>>>>>> telinit u
>>>>>> /etc/init.d/firewall restart