Talk:mkinitcpio

Talking about other hooks and a more generic view of the early userspace

I am the current maintainer of the the dropbear_initrd_encrypt^AUR, and, I've also developed some other mkinitcpio hooks, such as: mkinitcpio-ppp^AUR and mkinitcpio-ddns^AUR. I will write some wiki pages describing them, but I would also like to talk more about the early userspace. So, my question is, should I make an early userspace page, should I write a page just for the hooks? Should I write it and make it related to the mkinitcpio page? Thanks in advance.

Grazzolini (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends a lot on how much content you're actually going to write. I suggest starting by expanding on the early userspace in Arch boot process; then, if what you write gets too long, we can always consider splitting the page. About custom/additional hooks you might create a section below Mkinitcpio#Common hooks, following the same principle: if the content gets too long/detailed to stay in the page, we can split it later. In any case, it's very important that you try your best to avoid duplicating existing information in other articles, and instead either add links to them, or move that information to your new content, if it fits best there, and add links to the new location from the articles where the info was removed. — Kynikos (talk) 4:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your information Kynikos. I'll be contributing these changes very soon. Grazzolini (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark /usr with a passno of 2, not 0

mkinitcpio#/usr as a separate partition firmly suggests to mark /usr with a passno of 0 in /etc/fstab. The way I understand man fstab, 2 is the correct number for the task. Am I wrong? Regid (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It also suggests adding the fsck hook to your config. Seeing as the regular fsck binaries reside on the /usr partition, this is needed to actually make it possible to fsck it at startup. The entry in /etc/fstab should thus be 0. Koneu (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I see your point about the binaries residing on /usr. Still, with a passno of 0 you set no automatic fsck at all, don't you? Would you set passno for / to 0 when usr is an integral part of /?

Indeed the fsck hook copies fsck binaries to the initramfs, and possibly ignores passno for / and /usr at runtime. As an aside, its help text should mention usr, not just /.

Regid (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems the passno needs to be 2 instead, as otherwise I only get the message about / being clean at boot time. After changing passno to 2 I get the additional message that /usr is also clean. The only error in the logs is in regard to / (/dev/sda2 is mounted. e2fsck: Cannot continue, aborting.) which could indicate that the passno for / needs to be 0 instead. Maklor (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Talking about LUKS/LVM with sd-encrypt example

Formerly there was a link to the forum that was ambiguous about where the UUID were generated from. enckse documented clearly the same use case within this page, which was reverted by Lahwaacz in this change. The current edit of the page removes a reference to the forum post entirely. Where should the writeup from enckse be placed? - storrgie 22:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

In the previous form, ie., as a tutorial, it would belong in someone's namespace. If you just want to capture the bit about determining UUIDs, then that is already documented on the relevant page. Jasonwryan (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If you review the forum post mentioned it isn't that I'm saying users don't know how to capture UUID. I'm saying that in the case of LUKS/LVM the rd.luks.uuid requires the block device UUID and the root=UUID= requires the UUID of the root volume group. This is what is ambiguous in the original forum post. Let's be clear, this is a commonly followed install pathway (LUKS/LVM), so why let users be confused when we've got a documented use case? - storrgie 22:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Then that relevant factoid belongs on the dm-crypt page page. Jasonwryan (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to place it in an appropriate place on that page, please advise. - storrgie 22:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I said *not* the entire tutorial, just the relevant snippet about locating the correct uuids. Jasonwryan (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have a proposed modification rather than just slapping the revert button. - storrgie 23:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

enckse's writeup is really no better than the forum post, it just describes how to do one specific thing without explaining the steps. That's not the wiki way, the wiki should explain the steps in some organized way and let users combine them as they want.

That said, I think that everything discussed here is already on the dm-crypt/System configuration page:

• mkinitcpio hooks: dm-crypt/System_configuration#mkinitcpio (two variants, base and systemd)
• bootloader config: dm-crypt/System_configuration#Using_encrypt_hook (for the base hook) and dm-crypt/System_configuration#Using_sd-encrypt_hook (for the systemd hook) - the second section explains what the rd.luks.* parameters actually do, this cannot be found in the forum post
• If you don't know how to get the UUIDs, read the Persistent block device naming page - it is linked multiple times from dm-crypt/System configuration. There is no point to include a full example of lsblk -f everywhere.

Though I must admit, that I can't find the rd.lvm.lv kernel parameter anywhere on the wiki. I have no idea what it's for and the forum post does not explain it either. Is it necessary for resume? Or for LVM? Or the LUKS/LVM combo? If you find out, feel free to explain it here so we can find an appropriate place on the wiki for it.

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

rd.lvm.lv seems to be a dracut specific thing. -- nl6720 (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

[1] confuses me. Is /etc/crypttab meant to be /etc/crypttab on real root or /etc/crypttab in initramfs (i.e. /etc/crypttab.initramfs on real root)? -- nl6720 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Since the snippet is from the systemd-cryptsetup-generator(8) man page, I'd say it's the root where systemd-cryptsetup-generator is run. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

mkinitcpio#Non-root drives are not decrypted by sd-lvm2 hook doesn't make the distinction, which makes the whole section nonsense. Why would you expect sd-lvm2 to have access to block devices that are decrypted after boot (those listed in /etc/crypttab on real root)? Using /etc/crypttab.initramfs is far simpler than messing around with all those rd.luks. and luks. parameters. -- nl6720 (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea, I just moved the section from systemd-boot. See also Talk:Systemd-boot#Move_section_.22Non-root_drives_are_not_decrypted_by_sd-lvm2_mkinitcpio_hook.22. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Improvements for the Common hooks table and section about systemd hook

I find the Common hooks table extremely useful on getting some information about the mkinitcpio hooks, especially when it comes to systemd hook compatibility, so I started to improving it, especially as some info seemed to be missing or incomplete. So far I added the note about the modules missing from the table that are included in initramfs package and noted the btrfs-progs for btrfs hook (it was noted only in Runtime, even if package hosts files for both) and what it seems mkinitcpio-nfs-utils requirement for net hook – although I'm not 100% sure about the last one, as the package wasn't installed on any of my Arch machines, so I just took a quick look at the repository in browser.

Next thing that got me confused was the Installation and Runtime tables. I realized that Installation must actually mean the Build as that's how the hooks are separated and took a look at what is included in /usr/lib/initcpio/install/ and /usr/lib/initcpio/hooks/ respectively. I found out that while most of the info is accurate (and despite resume hook being present in install/ it indeed seems it only calls for runtime hook) there are some discrepancies – in hooks/ there seems to be no mdadm_udev hook, nor fsck hook. Also, while some busybox (base) hooks have their Runtime equivalents, this is not in case for sd- equivalents or systemd's equivalent for the udev, usr and resume (see below).

Which brings me to the final point: using systemd in place of default udev and base. It is barely documented on wiki, a bit better on it's help entry, but have been covered in other places. I have been doing that on my machine for a while but are not sure of the explicit benefits of this. I haven't noticed major changes and default mkinitcpio.conf doesn't even mention it. The table covers the systemd equivalents, but I think a separate section explaining this could be helpful – maybe I just haven't found it yet and it is documented somewhere on wiki, but IMO it should at least be noted near that table, as it's not mentioned anywhere prior it on that page, other the Related articles and the expansion note. Also, it took me a while to figure the busybox/systemd meanings as they are confusing. Busybox is not mentioned anywhere in the page prior the table, so it either needs prior knowledge or looking at external sources, like /dev/brain0 » Blog Archive » Early Userspace in Arch Linux linked at the beginning. The note for base to "Always keep this hook as the first hook unless you know what you are doing." on the wiki and mkinitcpio -H base doesn't explain that it is safe to remove it and systemd's doesn't span towards base in the table. The only clue is "Provides a busybox recovery shell when using systemd hook." note and only mkinitcpio -H systemd clears the situation – i.e. the fact that the base can be safely removed, if one doesn't need the recovery shell. It would be nice to explain systemd's hook meaning a little in this wiki page, and would be great if someone more knowledgeable help with that, as I'm only inexperienced tinkerer :).

Faalagorn (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for improving. I have slightly different question. Does base hook really provide rescue shell for systemd? Last time I tried to switch to systemd I noticed there is no way to get into rescue shell if something goes wrong. That's why I reverted back to busybox. --Mxfm (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Rescue shell should work since systemd-230-5, see FS#36265. If it does not work file a new bug report. -- nl6720 (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I actually couldn't make it work by any mean using systemd hook and `rd.rescue` kernel parameter.

The only way for me to enter rescue/emergency shell with systemd (also having base hook in `mkinitcpio.conf`) was using `--force` flag for `sulogin` by editing the `rescue.service`.

It shows me an error that root user is locked… which is because it can't access any shadow file (I guess) Arash (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed shutdown and sd-shutdown from the expansion template. shutdown is deprecated[2] and sd-shutdown should not be added to mkinitcpio.conf, it's used only by mkinitcpio-generate-shutdown-ramfs.service.

As you found out Installation means stuff in /usr/lib/initcpio/install/ and Runtime - /usr/lib/initcpio/hooks/. The Runtime stuff is custom busybox shell scripts made by Arch devs. systemd-based hooks don't use any hacky scripts, they uses unit files to start the services so the Runtime doesn't really apply to systemd-based hooks. -- nl6720 (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

systemd doesn't span towards base in the table because it's not a direct replacement for it, it doesn't provide a recovery shell. There's no need to use systemd hooks unless you have a problem with the busybox hooks, or need functionality that busybox hooks don't provide (e.g. FS#23182, FS#42851). -- nl6720 (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! Since you clarified some of my doubts, I have updated the table to use the Build instead Installation notations, since that's what they were referred to previously, and linked to the appropriate sections. I also noted that runtime hooks are only used with busybox init and hopefully clarified the part about inits in the first two columns (maybe that should be rather explained in the sections above though?) – feel free to improve that further though! There's also some standing uncertainess about the mdadm_udev and fsck I mentioned, as their are missing their runtime files and are still described in the table? I still think that the systemd section would be worthwhile and a bit clarification on the table – I also found another benefit of systemd hook – additional initrd breakup in systemd-analyze, see this post and the post it refers to. Since i was fiddling with things improving the boot time, the extra info is quite helpful for me. There may be some more nuances, too – I was also after silent boot and while my current systemd initramfs is quiet with just the quiet and loglevel kernel parameters, the base + udev hooks are not and probably require more tinkering.Faalagorn ☎/✓ 16:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: There's also issue/question about the mdadm hook and systemd – according to this, mdadm hook doesn't work and only mdadm_udev works with systemd hook. If that still stand, shouldn't mdadm be marked as not implemented, similar to the net hook for systemd-based init? Also, technically systemd hook should also have entry in the table I guess, similar how base (plus udev, usr and resume) have. Faalagorn ☎/✓ 16:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I did some testing with minimal initramfs with no (cat) compression comparing base with systemd hooks boot times. Here are my results from 20 boot times – it's not professional and done mainly for my own curiosity, but what I found out that while boot time were similar, I spotted the differences – with base hook EFISTUB loader was constantly 20-21ms faster, which is understandable since the base hook initramfs is physically smaller. However, when using systemd hook, time spent in userspace was constantly being less for at least a couple ms, averaging at around 27ms less. My boot times with that setup were extremely fast in the first place, running minimal system from an M.2 SSD and hindered mostly by firmware, so the difference may vary by systems, but it seems there's some possible boot time improvements with systemd other than the benefit of splitting initrd from kernel in systemd-analyze. Also, when using systemd hook, systemd-analyze blame now lists more services. initrd-* services are unsurprising, but there were also new systemd-fsck-root.service, systemd-modules-load.service and systemd-tmpfile-clean.service – and still time spent in userspace boot process is less. Unfortunately, the F2FS on that system broke with can't find valid checkpoint error when I uncleanly shut the system down, which according to sources found online is irreparable and relatively common lately, so I won't test it further with F2FS, especially as I'm not gonna trust my partition to F2FS anyime soon, but I'll see how it'll be with regular ext4. I may also get to writing a section about systemd-based initramfs unless there's some opposition or someone else is working on it and probably update the Minimal initramfs page as well. Faalagorn ☎/✓ 13:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Files automatically sourced by mkinitcpio

Some files are automatically sourced by mkinitcpio, they should be referenced here. For example, mkinitcpio will use /etc/crypttab.initramfs but this is only mentioned in Dm-crypt/System configuration, and is nowhere to be found in mkinitcpio(8) or on this page. Are there others like this?

--Cvlc (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, mkinitcpio itself won't use crypttab.initramfs. The sd-encrypt hook will, but that's separate from mkinitcpio. Scimmia (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

base vs systemd, and the recovery shell

First, I would be strongly in favour of extending the systemd section in the table up one cell to include the base hook, because it really does provide the same functionality.

The only thing it's lacking is a recovery shell, but that's not an integral part of the boot process, it's an additional feature, and not even a very useful one. As long as you stick a big fat warning on it saying "put the base hook before or you'll lose your recovery shell", it should be fine.

Second, the Wiki should mention that you can enable the locked recovery shell if you really need to by editing

/usr/lib/systemd/system/emergency.service

to include

Environment=HOME=/root SYSTEMD_SULOGIN_FORCE=1

The only problem is I'm not sure if its persistent. If you take care of this, please delete my comment.

PBS (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the systemd hook doesn't provide a shell means that it doesn't provide same functionality as base. So, I'm against extending the cell.

As for editing emergency.service, I don't think that's a good idea. The unit is used not just in the initramfs (emergency.target can run in both the intramfs and after switch root).

-- nl6720 (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• In that case, I think I would like to emphasize somewhere else on the page that base and systemd both provide init, and are interchangeable modulo recovery shells. The page in its current state confused me for a while as to their roles until I read the implementation.
• Emphasis on if you really need to. For example, this might be necessary for debugging problems in early userspace. I wouldn't recommend it in real life for this very reason, and would put a big warning saying so on the Wiki if I added it. I suppose the answer anyway is just to copy the unit file to /etc... PBS (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I had to come here to see that I can remove base if I don't use the recovery shell. Afader (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I adjusted the text to make it clear that it's optional. As for the workaround for the locked shell, IMHO it can be added (with proper warnings) to mkinitcpio#Troubleshooting. -- nl6720 (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the recovery shell being locked shouldn't just be considered a bug since it doesn't function without some workaround. I have occasionally had an error in boot that dropped me to the non-working root shell where I vainly attempted to use it to correct the error. Inevitably in these cases I simply have to use the arch install media to arch-chroot to my installation. Afader (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not a bug, but a security feature 🙄. See [3], [4] and FS#70408. -- nl6720 (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading that makes me think the workaround should be including a separate shadow file in the initramfs as the comments say. However don't care to break my system to reproduce the failure scenario and see if that helps. Afader (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It will be persistent if you add it in a separate `.d` file in `/etc/` directory. Like this:

   `/etc/systemd/system/rescue.service.d/sulogin-force.conf`

And not editing `/usr/lib` files directly. Arash (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What's a common hook?

There is this highly valuable table under *Common hooks*. I'd like to question the mentioning of the following hooks, as I regard them not *common*, but only required for pretty special cases:

• `btrf` in case your root partition is on a multi-volume device based on btrfs.

• `net` if you want to boot from an NFS volume.

• `dmraid` and `mdadm_udev` for a root partition located on a soft RAID device.

• `lvm2` in case you want to boot from a logical volume.

These hooks should go in a separate section (like e.g. *Special cases*). Wolegis (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Instead of deciding what is common or not, we can also just rename the section to avoid the word "common". — Lahwaacz (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Done in Special:Diff/864156. Closing. — Andrei Korshikov (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, as I see from Special:Diff/865184, @Wolegis still wants to keep (his opinionated?) list of "common" hooks. And, frankly, I don't like the mentioned edit. So. What could we do? Maintain two separate sets of hooks ("special" and "common") or put them in a single list?

As for me (well, "practicality beats purity"), we can use a single hook list, until it will be unmanageable. I.e. I want to revert the mentioned edit, remove the word "common" (as said by @Lahwaacz), aaaand… just live with that:)

@Wolegis Could you explain, why you don't like that "one list of everything"?

cc: @Erus Iluvatar

— Andrei Korshikov (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is a delicate topic of what to exclude from or include into the table of hooks. Here is the list of all 53 hooks currently to be found in packages of core or extra (in one line for the sake of compactness):

acpi_override archiso archiso_kms archiso_loop_mnt archiso_pxe_common archiso_pxe_http archiso_pxe_nbd archiso_pxe_nfs autodetect base bcachefs block btrfs consolefont dmraid dropbear encrypt encryptssh filesystems fsck grub-btrfs-overlayfs haveged hostdata keyboard keymap kms lvm2 mdadm_udev memdisk microcode modconf net netconf ostree plymouth plymouth-shutdown resume sd-encrypt sd-encrypt-opensc sd-shutdown sd-vconsole sd-verity sd-volatile shutdown sleep strip systemd systemd-tool tinyssh tpm2-totp udev usr ykfde

IMHO, way too long. Additionally, some of those hooks have issues: tinyssh, dropbear, bcachefs, systemd-tool, net not having been touched for 13(!) years and with a misleading name. (These are only those I know of.)

I would be a little bit more comfortable with the list of 30 hooks that come with mkinitcpio:

acpi_override autodetect base block consolefont encrypt filesystems fsck hostdata keyboard keymap kms lvm2 mdadm_udev memdisk microcode modconf resume sd-encrypt sd-encrypt-opensc sd-shutdown sd-vconsole sd-verity sd-volatile shutdown sleep strip systemd udev usr

These hooks can be regarded as somewhat curated as this set of hooks has been consolidated from several other packages into mkinitcpio quite a while ago. (Sorry, I was unable to find the concrete commit(s) of this consolidation.)

Frankly, I would prefer the list of 18 hooks mentioned in mkinitcpio.conf - either in the HOOKS array itself or in other examples of it commented out:

autodetect base block consolefont encrypt filesystems fsck keyboard keymap kms lvm2 mdadm_udev microcode modconf sd-encrypt sd-vconsole systemd udev

At best, this should go hand in hand with a revision of the HOOKS examples. But this is probably something beyond the means of us mere wiki contributors.

All other hooks should be covered on the relevant wiki pages. E.g. my beloved net should be covered on Diskless system (and not on Mkinitcpio), as its usage requires quite some more preparations than can be covered in a table cell.

Wolegis (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The whole 53-long list is probably too big, some of the hooks from the 30-long one are listed in #Improvements for the Common hooks table and section about systemd hook as deprecated: I would like keep "acpi_override resume usr" if we trim the existing list though.

Opening a merge request to improve the upstream examples in mkinitcpio is something that I don't immediately see a downside too and should be within reach of my beloved wiki contributors.

-- Erus Iluvatar (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Amazing answer! Thank you for your time and effort for writing this. Finally, I got your idea and do agree with you (well, in general, besides some minor points). And, of course, I have some more clarification questions)

the list of all 53 hooks currently to be found in packages of core or extra

How did you find them? I guess it is not hard to automate such search, so I could update "the whole list of everything" once a month or so. No, I don't mean to incorporate all that stuff into the current table, but I want to create a separate list of "hook name" - "package name" (or vice versa?), and maybe a short description.

Frankly, I would prefer the list of 18 hooks mentioned in mkinitcpio.conf

Finally, I see your point, and do agree—these are the "common hooks". We may coin another name, or just resurrect "common hooks" and explain later in the text that "common" means "mentioned in mkinitcpio.conf". Or we could just name the section "mkinitcpio.conf hooks"…

At best, this should go hand in hand with a revision of the HOOKS examples.

+1

But this is probably something beyond the means of us mere wiki contributors.

Why? I think it is exactly our "job"—provide the most current documentation. Ok, it's not a job but a hobby, there are no deadlines, etc., etc., but I see nothing wrong with that.

All other hooks should be covered on the relevant wiki pages.

On this point I disagree strongly:) Well, ok, I agree that "other hooks should be covered on the relevant wiki pages", but I want them to be mentioned here too. We are a wiki (the wiki?;), after all—we like links, lists and all that stuff. Of course, complex lists are not always easy to maintain, but they are very helpful for readers to understand the whole picture and all possible options.

— Andrei Korshikov (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for answering so late. For unknown reasons I got no notifications about Erus' and Andrei's replies. I'm glad that we are moving towards some common understanding.

The list of all install hooks can be easily retrieved with pacman -F:

# pacman -Fy
$ pacman -Fl | grep " usr/lib/initcpio/install/"

The list of install hooks of a certain package (e.g. mkinitcpio)

$ pacman -Fl mkinitcpio | grep " usr/lib/initcpio/install/"

May I suggest the following structure:

Section Hooks with the table as we know it but limited to the hooks mentioned in mkinitcpio.conf as provided by package mkinitcpio. Probably the table will comprise a few more than the 18 hooks currently mentioned in mkinitcpio.conf. IMHO, the HOOKS examples in mkinitcpio.conf are in dire need of a revision, since all but one are covering busybox based initramfs, whereas systemd based initramfs has become standard with mkinitcpio version 40.

It should be stressed right at the beginning of the section that these are the most common hooks and mentioned in mkinitcpio.conf.

As far as I understand, Andrei wants to at least mention the 30-something hooks not covered by the table but to be found somewhere in packages of core or extra. This list should include:

• Name of the hook
• A terse description (the output of mkinitcpio -H should be a good starting point)
• Package providing this hook
• Systemd / busybox / hybrid
• (Optional) Status (e.g. deprecated, unmaintained, lack of documentation, ...)
• (Optional) A link to some other wiki page with more information.

Frankly, I would prefer to move this list (or table) to a sub-page so that Mkinitcpio doesn't get too long. I.e. section Hooks ends with something along: For more hooks see Mkinitcpio/Other hooks. As far as I know, it is common practice to list such a sub-page below Related articles too.

Suggestion: This sub-page could also comprise an additional list of assorted hooks from AUR. I am writing this as author of mkinitcpio-systemd-extras^AUR.

— Wolegis (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with everything.

This sub-page could also comprise an additional list of assorted hooks from AUR.

👍 Exactly my thoughts. — Andrei Korshikov (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Troubleshooting, chrooting into initramfs

mkdir -p /mnt/initramfs
cd $_
lsinitcpio -x /boot/initramfs-linux.img
mount --bind /proc ./proc
mount --bind /sys ./sys
mount --bind /dev ./dev
SHELL{{=}}/bin/ash chroot .

Pavelskipenes (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively for exploration, etc:

mkdir -p /tmp/initram
cd $_
sudo lsinitcpio -x /boot/initramfs-linux.img
sudo systemd-nspawn

What an unnecessary PITA Arch has made providing a simple contribution here!

--Cody Learner (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)