Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2007 23:17:50 +0200 > maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > update_initramfs is already settable in /etc/i-t/update-initramfs-conf > > So can we now agree on this? If 'update_initramfs = yes' in that config > file, then a package should run with '-u' with 'all' it should run '-k > all'. the proposal is to make it tristate [ all | yes | no ] with yes staying as default. david has a good point that update-initramfs should care to do the job so the postinst of each package has just to throw an update-initramfs. > Would you like me to create a patch for the postinst of i-t? afaik aboves idea has nothing to do with i-t postinst, but with update-initramfs, if we all agree that aboves is fine, i'll be happy to make that available for 0.89 sunny greetings -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
On Fri, 18 May 2007 23:17:50 +0200 maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ok, proposition is for example to change update_initramfs to all > and let the postinst of i-t, uswsusp, mdadm, usplash and so on > check against that setting before running -u or -u -k all. > file bug reports against any package that don't check against.. Right, such a propsal was in my initial mail and patch, with the exception that I used debconf instead of a config file. In a later mail I named a config file as an alternative... > update_initramfs is already settable in /etc/i-t/update-initramfs-conf So can we now agree on this? If 'update_initramfs = yes' in that config file, then a package should run with '-u' with 'all' it should run '-k all'. Would you like me to create a patch for the postinst of i-t? grts Tim signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:26:25PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > 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. 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]
Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
adding info about an irc discussion. On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:11:37PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > Well, this is the point. We don't have a consistent policy. Every > package does it's own, which for the given reasons is not a good > solution. If you have a better solution than the given one, please tell us. > > That the topic has come up several times, as you said yourself, should > be and indicator that the current behaviour of initramfs-tools is not ideal. > > If you don't like the implementation via debconf, as Tim suggested, this > is something that can be changed and discussed. > But the idea in general is the right one, imho. > > Cheers, > Michael 22:59 maks: what's so bad at giving the user the choice of having all initramfs files getting updated if set a safe default? 23:00 mbiebl: perverts the -k interface 23:00 I don't understand what you mean? Could you elaborate? 23:01 I don't mean to redefine the meaning of -u 23:01 but? 23:01 Packages using initramfs-tools would read the config setting and depending on that either run -u or -u -k all 23:02 So the meaning of -u stays the same. 23:02 Maybe you misunderstood that. 23:03 and how would that help uswsusp or mdadm ? 23:03 yes i misunderstood the initial proposal 23:06 people using uswsusp or mdadm would choose to have all initramfs files updated. ok, proposition is for example to change update_initramfs to all and let the postinst of i-t, uswsusp, mdadm, usplash and so on check against that setting before running -u or -u -k all. file bug reports against any package that don't check against.. update_initramfs is already settable in /etc/i-t/update-initramfs-conf thanks for feedback -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
maximilian attems wrote: > hello michael, > > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: >> Hi Maks, >> >> I guess you followed the discussion on the d-d mailing list about this >> issue. Imho it actually makes sense, to have a consistent >> update-initramfs-behaviour between all packages modifying the initramfs. >> Tim's proposal is not that bad either imho: > > d-d is the wrong ml, this has already been x times discussed on > d-kernel. No, it's not imho. This discussion is about having a consistent behaviour across several packages, among them are uswsusp, udev and mdadm, usplash and a lot more. This is not d-kernel specific, and I doubt the maintainers of these packages read the d-kernel m-l. >>> useless debconf proliferation is bad. >> This debconf message would only be within update-initramfs. Other >> packages using initramfs-tools would only *read* the debconf setting. So >> talking about debconf proliferation is a mild exaggeration. >> You could also achieve the same via a setting in a configuration file >> but using debconf is more userfriendly. > > no debconf is _not_ userfriendly. > and the config makes _zero_ sense. Without giving more reason why you think this is so, this sentence is absolutely meaningless. Try to give arguments, not statements. > update-initramfs with -a it has a well defined meaning. I guess you mean -k all here. Still I'm not sure what you want to say with that. > >>> second if you want to update all initramfs it is easy to do so. >> Sure it is. But the point is to have a consistent behaviour between all >> packages modifying the initramfs. >> Having one package use "-k all" (as madm already does) defeats the idea >> of having a backup initramfs. > > -k all is risky due to several reasons. I agree it is. But if you followed the discussion, some packages already use -k all for various reasons (e.g. uswsusp needs to have / and initramfs in sync). So, while some packages might use a simple -u, if there is only one package that uses -u -k all, it will dominate this and regenerate all initramfs files. > the backup initramfs is a different issue. > > >>> third this does not belong to initramfs-tools at all. >> Sure it does. initramfs-tools should be the package which defines the >> default behaviour of update-initramfs. Other packages should *not* >> modify this setting but only read it. > > no. > initramfs-tools provides a framework it has no business in enforcing > a dubious policy. Well, this is the point. We don't have a consistent policy. Every package does it's own, which for the given reasons is not a good solution. If you have a better solution than the given one, please tell us. That the topic has come up several times, as you said yourself, should be and indicator that the current behaviour of initramfs-tools is not ideal. If you don't like the implementation via debconf, as Tim suggested, this is something that can be changed and discussed. But the idea in general is the right one, imho. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
hello michael, On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Hi Maks, > > I guess you followed the discussion on the d-d mailing list about this > issue. Imho it actually makes sense, to have a consistent > update-initramfs-behaviour between all packages modifying the initramfs. > Tim's proposal is not that bad either imho: d-d is the wrong ml, this has already been x times discussed on d-kernel. > > useless debconf proliferation is bad. > > This debconf message would only be within update-initramfs. Other > packages using initramfs-tools would only *read* the debconf setting. So > talking about debconf proliferation is a mild exaggeration. > You could also achieve the same via a setting in a configuration file > but using debconf is more userfriendly. no debconf is _not_ userfriendly. and the config makes _zero_ sense. update-initramfs with -a it has a well defined meaning. > > second if you want to update all initramfs it is easy to do so. > > Sure it is. But the point is to have a consistent behaviour between all > packages modifying the initramfs. > Having one package use "-k all" (as madm already does) defeats the idea > of having a backup initramfs. -k all is risky due to several reasons. the backup initramfs is a different issue. > > third this does not belong to initramfs-tools at all. > > Sure it does. initramfs-tools should be the package which defines the > default behaviour of update-initramfs. Other packages should *not* > modify this setting but only read it. no. initramfs-tools provides a framework it has no business in enforcing a dubious policy. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:48:54 +0200 maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > tags 425050 wontfix > stop > > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 07:32:45PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra (tdykstra) wrote: > > > > I created a patch to ask a debconf question (medium priority) if > > update-initramfs should update all initramfs or not. The idea is that > > other packages (like my uswsusp package) should check this question too. > > > > This way we can make both the people that want to keep old initramfses > > around and the people that want an up-to-date initramfs for several > > versions happy at the same time. > > > > grts Tim > > big no: > useless debconf proliferation is bad. 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. > second if you want to update all initramfs it is easy to do so. No, it is not. Well not in an automated way consistent over all packages that use it. Maybe you haven't noticed, but this has come up several times in several bug reports already. Now we have a situation where from several packages, some only update the initramfs only for the current one, others for all. This is IMHO bad. I presume (reading other bug reports against u-i) that there was a good reason not to update them for all. Well know you don't get that behavior. > third this does not belong to initramfs-tools at all. Of course it is if we want it to be consistent over several packages. grts Tim signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 07:32:45PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra (tdykstra) wrote: >> >> I created a patch to ask a debconf question (medium priority) if >> update-initramfs should update all initramfs or not. The idea is that >> other packages (like my uswsusp package) should check this question too. >> >> This way we can make both the people that want to keep old initramfses >> around and the people that want an up-to-date initramfs for several >> versions happy at the same time. >> >> grts Tim > > big no: Hi Maks, I guess you followed the discussion on the d-d mailing list about this issue. Imho it actually makes sense, to have a consistent update-initramfs-behaviour between all packages modifying the initramfs. Tim's proposal is not that bad either imho: > useless debconf proliferation is bad. This debconf message would only be within update-initramfs. Other packages using initramfs-tools would only *read* the debconf setting. So talking about debconf proliferation is a mild exaggeration. You could also achieve the same via a setting in a configuration file but using debconf is more userfriendly. > second if you want to update all initramfs it is easy to do so. Sure it is. But the point is to have a consistent behaviour between all packages modifying the initramfs. Having one package use "-k all" (as madm already does) defeats the idea of having a backup initramfs. > third this does not belong to initramfs-tools at all. Sure it does. initramfs-tools should be the package which defines the default behaviour of update-initramfs. Other packages should *not* modify this setting but only read it. Cheers, Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tags 425050 wontfix Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses Tags were: patch Tags added: wontfix > stop Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
tags 425050 wontfix stop On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 07:32:45PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra (tdykstra) wrote: > > I created a patch to ask a debconf question (medium priority) if > update-initramfs should update all initramfs or not. The idea is that > other packages (like my uswsusp package) should check this question too. > > This way we can make both the people that want to keep old initramfses > around and the people that want an up-to-date initramfs for several > versions happy at the same time. > > grts Tim big no: useless debconf proliferation is bad. second if you want to update all initramfs it is easy to do so. third this does not belong to initramfs-tools at all. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#425050: initramfs-tools: Ask if we should update all initramfses
Package: initramfs-tools
Version: 0.87b.1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
I created a patch to ask a debconf question (medium priority) if
update-initramfs should update all initramfs or not. The idea is that
other packages (like my uswsusp package) should check this question too.
This way we can make both the people that want to keep old initramfses
around and the people that want an up-to-date initramfs for several
versions happy at the same time.
grts Tim
diff -Nur initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/control
initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/control
--- initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/control2007-04-13 22:39:36.0
+0200
+++ initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/control 2007-05-18 17:23:15.0
+0200
@@ -3,12 +3,12 @@
Priority: optional
Uploaders: Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, maximilian attems <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>, David Härdeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Maintainer: Debian kernel team
-Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 4.1.0), cdbs
+Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 4.1.0), cdbs, po-debconf
Standards-Version: 3.7.2.2
Package: initramfs-tools
Architecture: all
-Depends: klibc-utils (>= 1.4.19-2), busybox (>= 1:1.01-3) | busybox-initramfs,
cpio, module-init-tools, udev (>= 0.086-1)
+Depends: klibc-utils (>= 1.4.19-2), busybox (>= 1:1.01-3) | busybox-initramfs,
cpio, module-init-tools, udev (>= 0.086-1), ${misc:Depends}
Provides: linux-initramfs-tool
Description: tools for generating an initramfs
This package contains tools to create and boot an initramfs for packaged 2.6
diff -Nur initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/initramfs-tools.config
initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/initramfs-tools.config
--- initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/initramfs-tools.config 1970-01-01
01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/initramfs-tools.config 2007-05-18
19:22:21.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+#!/bin/sh -e
+#
+# initramfs-tools.config -- configure script for the initramfs-tools package
+#
+# Copyright 2007Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+#
+# Released to the public domain
+
+. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule
+
+db_input medium initramfs-tools/update_all_kernels || true
+
+db_go || true
diff -Nur initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/initramfs-tools.postinst
initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/initramfs-tools.postinst
--- initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/initramfs-tools.postinst 2007-04-06
23:32:57.0 +0200
+++ initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/initramfs-tools.postinst 2007-05-18
19:09:34.0 +0200
@@ -2,13 +2,23 @@
set -e
+. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule
+
if [ ! -e /etc/initramfs-tools/modules ]; then
cp /usr/share/initramfs-tools/modules /etc/initramfs-tools/
fi
+
# Regenerate initramfs on upgrade
if [ "$1" = "configure" ] && [ -n "$2" ]; then
- update-initramfs -u
+ db_get initramfs-tools/update_all_kernels
+ if [ "$RET" = "true" ]; then
+ ALL_KERNELS=" -k all"
+ else
+ ALL_KERNELS=
+ fi
+
+ update-initramfs -u $ALL_KERNELS
fi
#DEBHELPER#
diff -Nur initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/initramfs-tools.templates
initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/initramfs-tools.templates
--- initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/initramfs-tools.templates 1970-01-01
01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/initramfs-tools.templates2007-05-18
17:16:51.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+Template: initramfs-tools/update_all_kernels
+Type: boolean
+Default: false
+_Description: Update initramfs for all kernels?
+ If a package that uses initramfs-tools to install files on your initramfs gets
+ installed or updated it will need to update the existing initramfses. By
+ default only the initramfs of the (alphabetically sorted) most current kernel
+ will get updated to leave you with a backup in case anything went wrong. This
+ has the drawback that booting older kernels can be have reduced functionality
+ or unfixed bugs.
diff -Nur initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/po/POTFILES.in
initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/po/POTFILES.in
--- initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/po/POTFILES.in 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0
+0100
+++ initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/po/POTFILES.in 2007-05-18
17:38:41.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+[type: gettext/rfc822deb] initramfs-tools.templates
diff -Nur initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/po/templates.pot
initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/po/templates.pot
--- initramfs-tools-0.87b/debian/po/templates.pot 1970-01-01
01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ initramfs-tools-0.87b.1/debian/po/templates.pot 2007-05-18
17:38:42.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE.
+# Copyright (C) YEAR THE PACKAGE'S COPYRIGHT HOLDER
+# This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package.
+# FIRST AUTHOR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, YEAR.
+#
+#, fuzzy
+msgid ""
+msgstr ""
+"Project-Id-Version: PACKAGE VERSION\n"
+"Report-Msgid-Bugs-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2007-05-18 17:38+0200\n"
+"PO-Revision-Date: YEAR-MO-DA HO:MI+ZONE\n"
+"Last-Translator: FULL NAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>\n"
+"Lang
