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 pac
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
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 agains
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 questi
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
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 a
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
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 al
> 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.
>>
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 adminis
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 th
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 m
12 matches
Mail list logo
