Rolf Neugebauer

@duraki how did you test this? The comment does not say why what i proposed is not possible. What I suggested was to compile the CAN kernel modules against the...

I'd prefer if we avoid `grub2`... > if we have the 'CONFIG_ISO9660_FS=m' in the kernel configuration I suggest to not do that if you want ISO boot. I don't think...

@arm64b as said, I would prefer not to use `grub` at all. I noticed that the alpine gummiboot package also has the EFI stub https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/contents?branch=v3.6&name=gummiboot&arch=aarch64&repo=main can't we then boot arm64...

with all the ISO boot rework, can this be closed?

Yes something like that. Not near a computer at the moment, but I think the various output backends append root=... if it’s not specified. For an ISO it would default...

https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/nsdi2020-data/tree/master/prep/img contains some example for x86. I have not tried arm64

I agree with Justin. Happy to remove it from the builds and as a default arch from `linuxkit` but would be good to keep support where needed to build binaries...

the reason this is in `linuxkit/alpine` is that it is used/needed in multiple place. In the past we have done `containerd`/`runc` bumps where we update `linuxkit/alpine` but don't then update...

that could work...also include `runc` in the same package and call in `linuxkit/tools-contarinerd-runc` or somesuch. The last update was here: https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit/pull/3513 this might give a clue as to what needs...

How/where do you check? If you use `getty` you are in a namespace. One option to check is to create tarball `linuxkit build -format tar ` and check there.