Quoting andreimpope...@gmail.com (2019-12-16 09:42:46) > On Du, 15 dec 19, 18:50:23, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > I don't understand what you mean gets "activated by default": By > > default no custom file exists, and therefore none is "activated". > > Right. > > > Reason I prefer having that entry uncommented by default is to not > > need editing main file when adding a custom file. Main file is a > > conffile so the fewer situations it needs editing the better. > > Oh, didn't think about it being a conffile, so yes, I agree.
Happy that we agree :-) > > > For me it would make more sense to add some more variables to > > > generate different entries, e.g. something like U_BOOT_ALT_ROOT > > > (alternative root file system for which to generate entries). > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. Seems to you > > are switching topic to discuss something else, is that correct? > > Let me rephrase that. > > As I see it, the custom entries are potentially dangerous (unbootable > system, security, etc.) so it made sense for me to have them under > several "layers" of "protection". I was suggesting that instead of > having it enabled by default in the configuration to provide the admin > with additional switches for "common" customizations[1], that might > make it unnecessary to use this bigger hammer at all. > > Of course, as you mentioned above, with /etc/default/u-boot being a > conffile this tends to make the admin's life harder than it should. > > I'll rework the patch accordingly, probably sometimes this week. Thanks! Really, the only change I would want compared to your current proposed patch would be to have the newly line in the conffile uncommented. I am looking forward to see what changes you come up with. > [1] Not sure how common it is, but my motivation for this was to have > an entry with a different root file system that is not overwritten on > every update, hence my example above. I might come up with a patch > implementing U_BOOT_ALT_ROOT as well, if I don't have anything better > to do ;) Please make that a separate patch files as a separate bug from this one. What I can imagine, such feature would be more involving and I suspect the usecase is more narrow. On the other hand, I am really pleased with your proposed patch so it might simply be my imagination being too limited: Please do make a patch and try argue the case for its adoption! Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
