Re: Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 07:47:21PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: I'm not talking about installing multiple kernels. I'm talking about setting the wanted configuration for how multiple kernels should be handled on the installed system after the installation. And that setting would be nice to be able to preseed during installation. By that argument every config file should be converted to be managed by debconf. As this is not the case, automated installs should already handle replacing config files so this case should not be something special. IMHO settings that have a direct effect _during_ the install make sense to be settable using debconf, but I think this is not the case here. Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
also sprach Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.19.1832 +0200]: Come on. `useless debconf proliferation'? The question has medium priority. I can also make it an configration option somewhere and use that, but it was just a convenient why to get info from a user. I'd also say a debconf question is overkill. People who understand what the option means can edit a config file by hand. They can set their debconf priority. It's not something to avoid, adding debconf questions. Anyway, I propose that update-initramfs just loses the -k switch or provides a new wrapper that packages like cryptsetup and mdadm just call without worrying whether it will update all initrds or just the current one. -- .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
[Gabor Gombas] I'd also say a debconf question is overkill. People who understand what the option means can edit a config file by hand. Remember that using debconf allow the setting to be preseeded during installation. Editing a config file by hand is less convenient for preconfigured installations. Friendly, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:08:02AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: Anyway, I propose that update-initramfs just loses the -k switch or provides a new wrapper that packages like cryptsetup and mdadm just call without worrying whether it will update all initrds or just the current one. I agree...use a debconf or config file option, then let packages call update-initramfs with a new option (let's call it -p) and the option will be automatically honoured so that one or all initramfs images are rebuilt. -- David Härdeman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
On 20-May-07, 04:08 (CDT), martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: also sprach Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.19.1832 +0200]: Come on. `useless debconf proliferation'? The question has medium priority. I can also make it an configration option somewhere and use that, but it was just a convenient why to get info from a user. I'd also say a debconf question is overkill. People who understand what the option means can edit a config file by hand. They can set their debconf priority. It's not something to avoid, adding debconf questions. Yes, it is. Every question you ask is something more to confuse/distract/annoy a user. Debconf was *supposed* to be only for things for which there is no reasonable default. This is not one of those things. Certainly not at medium priority. Additionally, debconf breaks dpkg conffile handling -- if a setting is in debconf, the file can't be a conffile. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 01:59:20PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Remember that using debconf allow the setting to be preseeded during installation. Editing a config file by hand is less convenient for preconfigured installations. But why would you want to install _multiple_ kernels in a preseeded install while _not_ building an initrd for some of them? That's the only case I can think of when a debconf setting would be relevant; if you install just one kernel image or you want to create an initrd for all installed kernels then debconf wouldn't buy you anything over a config file... Gabor -- - MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
Please cc: the bug report On Sun, 20 May 2007 16:35:27 +0200 David Härdeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:08:02AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: They can set their debconf priority. It's not something to avoid, adding debconf questions Anyway, I propose that update-initramfs just loses the -k switch or provides a new wrapper that packages like cryptsetup and mdadm just call without worrying whether it will update all initrds or just the current one. I agree...use a debconf or config file option, then let packages call update-initramfs with a new option (let's call it -p) and the option will be automatically honoured so that one or all initramfs images are rebuilt. That seems sensible to me. Maximilian, what do you think? Is this acceptable to you? grts Tim signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 04:35:27PM +0200, David Härdeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:08:02AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: Anyway, I propose that update-initramfs just loses the -k switch or provides a new wrapper that packages like cryptsetup and mdadm just call without worrying whether it will update all initrds or just the current one. I agree...use a debconf or config file option, then let packages call update-initramfs with a new option (let's call it -p) and the option will be automatically honoured so that one or all initramfs images are rebuilt. That sounds to me like addressing the wrong problem. Maybe what should be done is that update-initramfs updates *all* the images, whatever happens, but a copy of the kernel and initramfs images used to boot the system as it is at the moment should be kept somewhere and a special grub/lilo/whatever item like Last successful boot setup should be added using these. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
also sprach Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.20.2102 +0200]: That sounds to me like addressing the wrong problem. Maybe what should be done is that update-initramfs updates *all* the images, whatever happens, but a copy of the kernel and initramfs images used to boot the system as it is at the moment should be kept somewhere and a special grub/lilo/whatever item like Last successful boot setup should be added using these. I would second this, but I think the two can be implemented separately as the initrd should be copied during early rcS and not when update-initramfs is called. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems seen on an advertising for an elaborate swiss men's watch: almost as complicated as a woman. except it's on time signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 23:06 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.20.2102 +0200]: That sounds to me like addressing the wrong problem. Maybe what should be done is that update-initramfs updates *all* the images, whatever happens, but a copy of the kernel and initramfs images used to boot the system as it is at the moment should be kept somewhere and a special grub/lilo/whatever item like Last successful boot setup should be added using these. I would second this, but I think the two can be implemented separately as the initrd should be copied during early rcS and not when update-initramfs is called. esp. since dpkg triggers aren't implemented yet and update-initramfs might be called a couple times between reboots and thus nuking the backup sean signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
