On 05/26/2010 03:36 AM, Stephen Powell wrote: > That works for now; but if a package upgrade for extlinux is ever > downloaded, I'm afraid that new versions of the hook scripts will > be copied into these directories which are marked executable, and > my hand-made configuration file will get wiped out. I would suggest > testing the existence of some flag file. If the flag file exists, > then invoking update-extlinux should be bypassed. Thus, if the user > doesn't want his hand-made /boot/extlinux/extlinux.conf file to be > tampered with, he can create that flag file via "touch" and the hook > script will not run update-extlinux. Strictly speaking, this is > an enhancement request.
as of current git, you can now use EXTLINUX_UPDATE=false in /etc/default/extlinux to prevent having update-extlinux do anything. > Second, it is important that any script run as a hook script not > produce any output at all to standard output. I found that out the > hard way when I was writing my own hook scripts for use with lilo. > That's because they run under debconf, which has redirected standard > output for its own purposes. Thus, anything written to standard > output is (1) never seen by the user and (2) has a good chance of > messing up debconf, which is examining the output. The invocation > of update-extlinux should have a redirection on it to redirect > output to standard error. For example, > > update-extlinux >&2 none of the hooks is doing this (initramfs-tools, grub, etc), might needs further convincing. -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: daniel.baum...@panthera-systems.net Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bfca228.5000...@debian.org
