On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:45:24 +0200 Andreas Cadhalpun <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Sadly it only "seems" to work well, but in fact, your previous (and I > assume also this) patch break apt-setup trying to add the CD to > /etc/sources.list. I am currently working on this problem and hope to > finish this soon. I'm sorry to hear that. I'll look into it as well; the error log you included in your previous message seemed to indicate that assumptions were being made about what block device represented the ISO, or where it was mounted. Since the "cdrom-detect" script already figures this out, this information just needs to be exported (via a file?) to other scripts. > Furthermore, for consistency I suggest to rename the boot option to > 'findiso=', since the live image already uses this option. They use a > implementation fairly similar to your first patch The effect of my second patch is that the ISO no longer has to be "found"; we can specify EXACTLY where (what filesystem, what pathname) it is located, and so that parameter name is now even more inappropriate, and that implementation quite incompatible with mine. > and I am sure, that they would gladly add any additional features > implemented in the debian-installer. I'm not at all sure about that. I've previously found them to be quite unwilling to make obviously beneficial changes, without being able to provide any rational reason for that refusal. http://lists.debian.org/debian-live/2013/08/threads.html#00054 http://lists.debian.org/debian-live/2013/09/threads.html#00000 And notice that so far, loopmount ISN'T implemented in the Debian installer; this discussion doesn't yet involve anybody except you and me. > The iso-scan package on the other hand seems not be in use currently. It turns out that it is, but only in the "hd-media" images, not the standard ISOs. http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2013/09/msg00097.html Which as you and I have both pointed out, is actually kind of dumb. > (I really don't care for the name, but it should be the same for all > Debian ISOs. It's bad enough, that this is inconsistent between > distributions!) I agree on both counts, but as I said above, there's not much point in making the names consistent, if the behavior isn't. For example, the iso-scan package in Ubuntu allows you to specify, via a boot parameter, the pathname for the image file, whereas the Debian version apparently doesn't, even if it is included in the initrd. So it would actually be better if the names WERE different, so as not to delude people into thinking that the features are the same. On another issue, I have some advice about your ISO-patching script. (I don't patch ISOs, but only initrds, because I prefer that the official MD5 and SHA256 hashes can still be verified.) You said it had to be executed with root privileges, presumably so that file ownership and device files come out right. You should investigate the "fakeroot" utility, which obviates the need for this. And is it possible to rename the bug report to something more descriptive? -- Ian Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
