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
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, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
11 matches
Mail list logo
