On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:10:02PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote: >On 02/11/2015 11:47 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Quite, that's exactly how it's meant to work and it's what I've seen >> in my development and testing. Silly question - is ubiquity trying to >> run some of the d-i bits in parallel, or something? > >That's what I was wondering. I'm looking at /var/log/partman now and it >appears that visual.d/35name runs and then I see /bin/perform_recipie >issue a NEW_PARTITION command to make the ext2 partition ( which will >later be formatted as fat32 for the esp ), and then the ext4 partition >for the root and then swap. Later init.d/50efi runs and "sees" the >partition that the earlier script "created" even though it has not >actually been committed to disk yet ( i.e. blkid still sees a blank disk ). > >Did we change the ordering in ubuntu or something so that the problem is >that visual.d has priority 35 but init.d/efi has priority 50 when they >should run the other order? I would think that all of the init.d >scripts would be run before any visual.d scripts though, and the >priorities just order them within their group. If that's not the case >then I guess they simply have the wrong priority.
Hi Phillip! [ technically I'm on VAC, but my wife's not watching... *grin* ] Any futher clues on this at all? I have next to no knowledge about how the Ubuntu installer code uses the d-i packages, which makes it difficult for me to comment much more. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150217063707.gb5...@einval.com
