Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
Hi, thanks to the totally uncoordinated switch from module-init-tools to kmod, d-i is badly broken. We're in freeze, neither debian-boot or debian-release were contacted, that's a huge success! Please unfuck this. And make sure you contact debian-boot@ for any further udeb addition or removal. Not amused, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
On Jul 15, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org wrote: thanks to the totally uncoordinated switch from module-init-tools to kmod, d-i is badly broken. We're in freeze, neither debian-boot or debian-release were contacted, that's a huge success! WTF are you talking about? We switched from module-init-tools to kmod months ago, and the last time I discussed d-i and modules with debian-boot people my understanding was that modules are now loaded by busybox. module-init-tools is not coming back, if d-i still needs something from kmod then just let me know without getting crazy for no reason. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
Hi! On 15.07.2012 14:59, Cyril Brulebois wrote: thanks to the totally uncoordinated switch from module-init-tools to kmod, d-i is badly broken. We're in freeze, neither debian-boot or debian-release were contacted, that's a huge success! Please unfuck this. And make sure you contact debian-boot@ for any further udeb addition or removal. Sorry from my side for the removal; I thought the dummy package in place would be enough. Best regards, Alexander -- 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/5002c08e.6080...@schmehl.info
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it (15/07/2012): WTF are you talking about? Obviously: #681285 KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: WTF are you talking about? We switched from module-init-tools to kmod months ago, and the last time I discussed d-i and modules with debian-boot people my understanding was that modules are now loaded by busybox. Can you provide the number of the bugreport requesting removal of the udeb? However, why is there a udeb called libkmod2-udeb then? module-init-tools is not coming back, if d-i still needs something from kmod then just let me know without getting crazy for no reason. http://hermes.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~blank/debian/kmod.diff Bastian -- Where there's no emotion, there's no motive for violence. -- Spock, Dagger of the Mind, stardate 2715.1 -- 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/20120715131625.ga31...@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
On Jul 15, Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org wrote: Can you provide the number of the bugreport requesting removal of the udeb? However, why is there a udeb called libkmod2-udeb then? It was discussed on IRC, I think with the busybox maintainer. module-init-tools is not coming back, if d-i still needs something from kmod then just let me know without getting crazy for no reason. http://hermes.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~blank/debian/kmod.diff This is interesting, because the last time I tried statically linking the udeb it was bigger than the dynamic one. -Os is supposed to be used, but now I see that it somehow broke. I can upload a new package later today, but I want to be really sure that there is a consensus to rename the udeb right now. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 15:37:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jul 15, Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org wrote: Can you provide the number of the bugreport requesting removal of the udeb? However, why is there a udeb called libkmod2-udeb then? It was discussed on IRC, I think with the busybox maintainer. That is not an appropriate way to make major changes to the installer. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it (15/07/2012): It was discussed on IRC, I think with the busybox maintainer. Because of course the busybox maintainer (on IRC) is the right point of contact for anything d-i related? Hint: no. KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
On Sun, 15, Jul, 2012 at 03:09:46PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois spoke thus.. Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it (15/07/2012): WTF are you talking about? Obviously: #681285 At the release / boot team's request, the -udeb and source has been placed back in unstable for now. I've also re-opened the removal bug. Once d-i is properly transitioned to kmod, please let us know and we'll remove it from unstable again. Thanks, Mark -- Mark Hymers mhy at debian dot org ++?++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start. Interesting Times, Terry Pratchett -- 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/20120715140330.ga9...@hymers.org.uk
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
Mark Hymers m...@debian.org (15/07/2012): At the release / boot team's request, the -udeb and source has been placed back in unstable for now. I've also re-opened the removal bug. Once d-i is properly transitioned to kmod, please let us know and we'll remove it from unstable again. Thanks, appreciated. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
On Jul 15, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote: This is interesting, because the last time I tried statically linking the udeb it was bigger than the dynamic one. And now I remembered: the udeb is not static because the current udev (which I failed to package timely, and now may be too late for wheezy...) needs libkmod. Even if we do not need the library for wheezy I doubt that it is a good idea renaming the package twice. So please let me know if I need to do anything right now: the only real bug is not building with -Os, which I can fix at any time. Please Cc me. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 16:33:26 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jul 15, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote: This is interesting, because the last time I tried statically linking the udeb it was bigger than the dynamic one. And now I remembered: the udeb is not static because the current udev (which I failed to package timely, and now may be too late for wheezy...) needs libkmod. s/may be/is/. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Thank you so much for breaking d-i!
On 15.07.2012 17:37, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jul 15, Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org wrote: Can you provide the number of the bugreport requesting removal of the udeb? However, why is there a udeb called libkmod2-udeb then? It was discussed on IRC, I think with the busybox maintainer. Well, if think it really was me (unless you mean some other discussion which I don't know about), and yes we ta I told you about busybox and modprobe (and other utils from m-i-t or kmod family). It was after you told me that m-i-t is going to be replaced with kmod. There are two discussions, or talks, were happining almost at once. One was about d-i, -- I notified #d-boot that busybox is now able to replace m-i-t.udeb as it has the same functionality (this is when you said that m-i-t is going to be replaced), and suggested not to enable this functionality in busybox (but it has been enabled already). And another - I told you that in INITRAMFS, ie, in regular busybox, modprobe from busybox is used, not from m-i-t or kmod package. This is because busybox includes modprobeCo in its regular build too (due to too high demand), and becase this build is built with FEATURE_PREFER_APPLETS enabled, which means that when busybox wants to exec something, it searches its applet of the same name first, and goes to $PATH next (why this option is enabled is another question/topic). In both cases, no one actually _disabled_ usage of kmod or m-i-t: in particular, in d-i, m-i-t is still used, and in initramfs case, the binaries will be put into initramfs even it they wont be used. I can only guess there was some misunderstanding between us happened. Or maybe I wasn't clear, or even wrong - sometimes I think d-i but say initramfs (as both environments are sort of minimal, pre-boot (or even pre-install) and thus very different from regular installed system). I can try to find this discussion in my irclogs, to see whenever I really said about d-i or initramfs (to mean initramfs ofcourse). Unfortunately, whomever was not writing or reading wrongly does not fix the breakage now... :( Note: in order to enable busybox modprobeCo in d-i, the ONLY thing needed is to _remove_ any alternatives (m-i-t or kmod), because when d-i is built, it runs a script which adds symlinks to busybox for all applets which are implemented in current build of busybox, AND which doesn't exist. So, IF no modprobe, insmod, rmmod, or lsmod is found, it will be created as a symlink to busybox. So it was only the build dependency which broke (which is what this thread is about). Whenever it is a good idea to use busybox modprobe or not is, again, a different question. Since it is already used in initramfs and apparently will be used in wheezy, I think it should be safe to use it in d-i too. But having in mind beta1 of d-i should come out, any change there is, well, unwelcome. module-init-tools is not coming back, if d-i still needs something from kmod then just let me know without getting crazy for no reason. http://hermes.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~blank/debian/kmod.diff This is interesting, because the last time I tried statically linking the udeb it was bigger than the dynamic one. -Os is supposed to be used, but now I see that it somehow broke. I can upload a new package later today, but I want to be really sure that there is a consensus to rename the udeb right now. Thanks, /mjt -- 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/5002e519.1080...@msgid.tls.msk.ru
