Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)
On 07/06/2010 17:37, Stephen Powell wrote:
But for a kernel install or reconfigure, it is the responsibility of the
kernel maintainer scripts to invoke the bootloader. See also, for example,
linux-image-2.6.26-2-s390.postinst, where zipl is assigned as the bootloader
on line 38. This really is an open and shut case, if only I can the kernel
people to actually look at it! Please look at it!
If I recall correctly, kernel maintainers have introduced
/etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/ in order to avoid to hardcode each possible
bootloader in their script.
Can't lilo provide a script here ?
Regards,
Vincent
--
Vincent Danjean Adresse: Laboratoire d'Informatique de Grenoble
Téléphone: +33 4 76 61 20 11ENSIMAG - antenne de Montbonnot
Fax:+33 4 76 61 20 99ZIRST 51, avenue Jean Kuntzmann
Email: vincent.danj...@imag.fr 38330 Montbonnot Saint Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c0e2c0e.2060...@free.fr
Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 13:39 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
On 07/06/2010 17:37, Stephen Powell wrote:
But for a kernel install or reconfigure, it is the responsibility of the
kernel maintainer scripts to invoke the bootloader. See also, for example,
linux-image-2.6.26-2-s390.postinst, where zipl is assigned as the bootloader
on line 38. This really is an open and shut case, if only I can the
kernel
people to actually look at it! Please look at it!
If I recall correctly, kernel maintainers have introduced
/etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/ in order to avoid to hardcode each possible
bootloader in their script.
Can't lilo provide a script here ?
It could, but that should be redundant in squeeze since update-initramfs
already runs lilo.
This appears to be a problem in lenny, where by default neither the
kernel postinst nor the initramfs builder runs lilo.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 13:39 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
On 07/06/2010 17:37, Stephen Powell wrote:
But for a kernel install or reconfigure, it is the responsibility of the
kernel maintainer scripts to invoke the bootloader. See also, for
example,
linux-image-2.6.26-2-s390.postinst, where zipl is assigned as the
bootloader
on line 38. This really is an open and shut case, if only I can the
kernel
people to actually look at it! Please look at it!
If I recall correctly, kernel maintainers have introduced
/etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/ in order to avoid to hardcode each possible
bootloader in their script.
Can't lilo provide a script here ?
It could, but that should be redundant in squeeze since update-initramfs
already runs lilo.
Not every kernel package needs an initrd.
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
| `-http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100608120012.gu14...@anguilla.noreply.org
Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 14:00 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 13:39 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
On 07/06/2010 17:37, Stephen Powell wrote:
But for a kernel install or reconfigure, it is the responsibility of the
kernel maintainer scripts to invoke the bootloader. See also, for
example,
linux-image-2.6.26-2-s390.postinst, where zipl is assigned as the
bootloader
on line 38. This really is an open and shut case, if only I can the
kernel
people to actually look at it! Please look at it!
If I recall correctly, kernel maintainers have introduced
/etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/ in order to avoid to hardcode each possible
bootloader in their script.
Can't lilo provide a script here ?
It could, but that should be redundant in squeeze since update-initramfs
already runs lilo.
Not every kernel package needs an initrd.
But those that don't, invoke lilo (or other bootloader) directly.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:39:58 -0400 (EDT), Vincent Danjean wrote:
On 07/06/2010 17:37, Stephen Powell wrote:
But for a kernel install or reconfigure, it is the responsibility of the
kernel maintainer scripts to invoke the bootloader. See also, for example,
linux-image-2.6.26-2-s390.postinst, where zipl is assigned as the bootloader
on line 38. This really is an open and shut case, if only I can the kernel
people to actually look at it! Please look at it!
If I recall correctly, kernel maintainers have introduced
/etc/kernel/post{inst,rm}.d/ in order to avoid to hardcode each possible
bootloader in their script.
Can't lilo provide a script here ?
do_bootloader = yes
in /etc/kernel-img.conf means run the historic boot loader for this platform.
For the i386 platform (and amd64) the historic boot loader is lilo. For
the s390 platform, that boot loader is zipl. The kernel maintainer scripts
for the s390 platform still specify zipl as the boot loader
my $loader= zipl; # lilo, silo, quik, palo, vmelilo, nettrom,
arcboot, or delo
so that
do_bootloader = yes
in /etc/kernel-img.conf will work. The kernel maintainer scripts for i386 and
amd64
for Lenny and beyond specify a null string. That is inconsistent. It should
specify
my $loader= lilo; # lilo, silo, quik, palo, vmelilo, nettrom,
arcboot, or delo
for consistency between platforms. For non-historic boot loaders, the method
used is to set
do_bootloader = no
in /etc/kernel-img.conf and supply a hook script of some kind, if needed. For
example,
grub version 1 in Lenny invokes it's hook scripts via
do_bootloader = no
postinst_hook = update-grub
postrm_hook = update-grub
in /etc/kernel-img.conf. Grub version 2 does not need a hook script; so it
simply sets
do_bootloader = no
in /etc/kernel-img.conf. In Squeeze and later, there is an alternate method
for running
hook scripts (so that more than one hook script can be invoked). Simply
install the
script in /etc/kernel/preinst.d, /etc/kernel/prerm.d, /etc/kernel/postinst.d, or
/etc/kernel/postrm.d. But even in Squeeze/Sid, the historic boot loader can
still be run
by setting
do_bootloader = yes
in /etc/kernel-img.conf. That still works for zipl on the s390 platform. But
it's
been broken since Lenny on the i386 and amd64 platforms for lilo.
initramfs-tools also examines this variable and runs the historic boot loader
when
update-initramfs -u
is invoked. That still works, even on the i386 and amd64 platforms, provided
that
do_bootloader = yes
is specified in /etc/kernel-img.conf. But
update-initramfs -c
does not invoke the boot loader. Running the historic boot loader during
installation,
reconfiguration, or upgrade of a kernel is still the responsibility of the
kernel
maintainer scripts. And it cannot do so unless my $loader is set to the name
of
the historic boot loader. On s390, that variable is set properly. On i386 and
amd64,
it is not.
The kernel maintainer scripts provided by kernel image packages created by
make-kpkg
on Squeeze and later are another story. They no longer do *any*
post-installation
actions unless user-provided hook scripts cause it to happen. But the
maintainer
scripts for official stock Debian kernel images still support these historic
post-installation activities.
--
.''`. Stephen Powell
: :' :
`. `'`
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/1661542040.41185.1276004599156.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:22:46 -0400 (EDT), sean finney wrote: On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 01:44:05AM +0400, William Pitcock wrote: Have fun. When you have a release that actually has merit, it can be reconsidered for inclusion in Debian. In the meantime, the original plan continues. actually, i don't think you have any say about what software can and can not be in debian, that is the sole privilege of ftp-master. your options are (a) to claim you still want to maintain the package and continue to do so, or (b) ask for its removal by ftp-master. given your comments here i think if you were to claim (a) there would be a decent case for someone to take to the tech-ctte. ftp-master, if they're aware of this argument, may just say why not orphan it instead?. but regardless, if someone else is interested they can just follow that removal with a new upload using their name as Maintainer, and then again it's up to ftp-master to accept or deny it. given that there may be an active upstream and maintainer, and the software is otherwise DFSG-compatible, i don't see why they would deny such a new upload. of course, it would be a lot nicer if you could just hand over the reins of the current package to those who have been asking for them, to avoid some un-needed overhead... sean Perhaps I can offer a solution here. Since William obviously doesn't wish to maintain this package any longer, I am willing to take over his responsibilities as a Debian package maintainer for lilo under two conditions: (1) The kernel team fixes bug number 505609, and (2) Debian ceases its attempts to remove lilo from the distribution. What do you say, William? Do you have any objections? Does anyone else have any objections? If so, speak now, or forever hold your peace. Keep in mind that I have never been a Debian package maintainer before. This will be my first package. Please be patient with me as I learn the ropes, so to speak. As for whether or not lilo continues to be offered as an alternate boot loader by the Debian installer, that is entirely up to them. I would think that the path of least resistance would be to maintain the status quo, but if they want to remove lilo from the Debian installer menu that's their call, as far as I am concerned. I just don't want to see lilo removed from the distribution. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1196418916.5745.1275918400688.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)
reassign 505609 initramfs-tools thanks Hi Stephen, thanks for stepping up maintaining lilo in Debian! I hope you'll manage this well. On Montag, 7. Juni 2010, Stephen Powell wrote: Perhaps I can offer a solution here. Since William obviously doesn't wish to maintain this package any longer, I am willing to take over his responsibilities as a Debian package maintainer for lilo under two conditions: (1) The kernel team fixes bug number 505609, and (2) Debian ceases its attempts to remove lilo from the distribution. There is no attempt from Debian. The current lilo maintainer thought this was the best option for lilo as he was going to orphan it and also because there was no upstream. If you step up to maintain lilo (and the codebase is and stays acceptable) and maintain lilo in Debian, removing lilo is moot. Keep in mind that I have never been a Debian package maintainer before. The Debian New Maintainers Guide (ie at http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/) shall be your friend, as well as lintian and debian-ment...@lists.debian.org as well as #debian-mentors on IRC. Have fun! :-) As for whether or not lilo continues to be offered as an alternate boot loader by the Debian installer, that is entirely up to them. Fair enough. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:33:52 -0400 (EDT), Holger Levsen wrote: Hi Stephen, thanks for stepping up maintaining lilo in Debian! I hope you'll manage this well. Um, thanks; but I don't understand the reassignment of bug number 505609 to package initramfs-tools. If you read my previous posts to the bug log, it is clear that this problem started with a change to the maintainer scripts between Etch and Lenny. Please read my posts again carefully. Then consider whether this is really a bug in initramfs-tools or a bug in the kernel maintainer scripts. initramfs-tools only gets involved when update-initramfs -u is issued. And it *does* invoke the boot loader under these conditions, if do_bootloader = yes is present in /etc/kernel-img.conf and lilo is installed. But for a kernel install or reconfigure, it is the responsibility of the kernel maintainer scripts to invoke the bootloader. See also, for example, linux-image-2.6.26-2-s390.postinst, where zipl is assigned as the bootloader on line 38. This really is an open and shut case, if only I can the kernel people to actually look at it! Please look at it! -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/120369280.10411.1275925077969.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
