On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 15:00 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 02:47:56PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 09:35 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > This is a good start, but it doesn't specify *how* boot loader packages > > > are to be disabled. I think that this needs to be consistent across > > > boot loaders. > > > > That would be good, but it is already a problem you have to deal with in > > creating a live distribution (e.g. you don't want an invocation of > > 'lilo' without arguments to install on some random disk chosen at build > > time). I believe it is out of scope for this policy. > > > > For what it's worth, I think the basic answer is 'don't create a > > configuration file'. However, elilo will do that on installation by > > default, so you need to set debconf variable elilo/runme to false. > > Speaking as the grub2 maintainer, this is not particularly helpful there > as the packaging creates a configuration file on installation if > requested based on debconf interaction. Of course I can invent some way > to change this but I would like that to be consistent with other boot > loaders - that being part of the point of this report!
This doesn't apply to grub2 since it will only update its configuration and not reinstall into the boot sector. I hope I've made this clear when updating the kernel handbook; please review 7.2 and 7.3 of <http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-update-hooks.html>. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
