Bug#548900: Bug#492560: [pkg-cryptsetup-devel] Bug#548900: udev update killed my LVM2 boot (sed: not found)
hey, i dropped most adresses in Cc: header as this discussion becomes more and more offtopic. On 30/09/2009 Sheridan Hutchinson wrote: 2009/9/30 maximilian attems m...@stro.at: your box is simply broken if it does not foollow the debian reference, which explicitly says that recommends have to be installed. and yes you have negletected the big warnings. tweaking Debian boxes is fine as long as you understand what you change and can handle the consequences. Thank you for your perspective. It's interesting when install recommends became default from what I read at the time it seemed perfectly acceptable to continue running without recommends, and I understand that many people do. Over time it appears that has become less so the case, but I have never seen a big warning and cannot find in the Debian documents where it says that package functionality cannot be guaranteed without 'recommends' being enabled. I am very keen to keep my machines as close to stock and reference as possible so I'm going to considering changing apt back to the default install recommends this weekend. My boxes are highly untuned/tweaked and where possible I run with default configuration files and let the packages themselves look after everything. If I do configure anything my preference is always to use --reconfigure or the package/app using it's own interface. To think I'm meddling with my boxes intricacy's just isn't the case. Overall though, as far as machines that follow the reference Debian install are concerned, I cannot see the distinction now between a hard dependency, and a recommends dependency. Maybe in future there will just be 'dependencies' and 'suggests'; the recommends category is superfluous for a Debian reference install. if you take a look at the debian policy, difference between depends and recommends should become obvious to you: ---snip--- Depends This declares an absolute dependency. A package will not be configured unless all of the packages listed in its Depends field have been correctly configured. The Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is required for the depending package to provide a significant amount of functionality. The Depends field should also be used if the postinst, prerm or postrm scripts require the package to be present in order to run. Note, however, that the postrm cannot rely on any non-essential packages to be present during the purge phase. Recommends This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency. The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together with this one in all but unusual installations. ---snap--- http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps greetings, jonas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#492560: Bug#548900: Bug#492560: [pkg-cryptsetup-devel] Bug#548900: udev update killed my LVM2 boot (sed: not found)
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Sheridan Hutchinson wrote: /9/30 Jonas Meurer jo...@freesources.org: c.) busybox should be a hard dependency on lvm2, or cryptsetup, as INDISPENSABLE for people with encrypted LVM2's to be able to boot no, lvm2, cryptsetup, mdadm, etc all can still be used without initramfs on non-root partititions (or for lvm with lilo), thus a hard dependency is the wrong way to go. initramfs-tools already recommends busybox, and installing recommends is the default in debian since lenny. I disagree with your analysis, I do not see why people who don't install recommends should not expect packages and functionality to just work. additionally update-initramfs warns about missing busybox in case that you have root on dm-crypt/lvm/dmraid/...: # update-initramfs -u update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-2.6.30-1-amd64 Warning: Busybox is required for successful boot! This warning is only shown if manually done like above, it is not shown when initramfs updates as a result of a trigger when using dpkg, apt, synaptic or aptitude. If I had seen this warning, I would have heeded it. i guess the only real bug here is busybox not invoking update-initramfs, all other issues you discovered where due to your special setup and you ignoring warnings and docs. i suggest to close the bugreport for that reason. Firstly, while I thank you for your help I don't like your tone and I have spoken to everyone else with the utmost respect so I do have an expectation I'll receive the same courtesy. Suggesting that I've ignored countless warnings and haven't read documentation is full of presumption: a.) I didn't see a warning, as I explained above; b.) I have not see anything in any document that says that busybox is essential for systems with LVM2 encrypted partitions to be able to boot. As an end-user, I have no way of knowing this to be the case. I do not however mind that it is the case, and normally Debian has appropriate dependencies so that things just work and I don't need to worry. Furthermore, I don't perceive what is special about the desire to run systems with only the packages that are needed. Again, thank you for your efforts in evaluating this bug report. Even though I disagree with the final resolution, hopefully other users who get caught out by this will come across this in Google and find a solution. your box is simply broken if it does not foollow the debian reference, which explicitly says that recommends have to be installed. and yes you have negletected the big warnings. tweaking Debian boxes is fine as long as you understand what you change and can handle the consequences. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#548900: Bug#492560: [pkg-cryptsetup-devel] Bug#548900: udev update killed my LVM2 boot (sed: not found)
2009/9/30 maximilian attems m...@stro.at: your box is simply broken if it does not foollow the debian reference, which explicitly says that recommends have to be installed. and yes you have negletected the big warnings. tweaking Debian boxes is fine as long as you understand what you change and can handle the consequences. Hello Max, Thank you for your perspective. It's interesting when install recommends became default from what I read at the time it seemed perfectly acceptable to continue running without recommends, and I understand that many people do. Over time it appears that has become less so the case, but I have never seen a big warning and cannot find in the Debian documents where it says that package functionality cannot be guaranteed without 'recommends' being enabled. I am very keen to keep my machines as close to stock and reference as possible so I'm going to considering changing apt back to the default install recommends this weekend. My boxes are highly untuned/tweaked and where possible I run with default configuration files and let the packages themselves look after everything. If I do configure anything my preference is always to use --reconfigure or the package/app using it's own interface. To think I'm meddling with my boxes intricacy's just isn't the case. Overall though, as far as machines that follow the reference Debian install are concerned, I cannot see the distinction now between a hard dependency, and a recommends dependency. Maybe in future there will just be 'dependencies' and 'suggests'; the recommends category is superfluous for a Debian reference install. -- Regards, Sheridan Hutchinson sheri...@shezza.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
