On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:15:59 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 08:11:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:24:51 +0200, Sven Luther
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > reassign 330445 kernel-package thanks
>>
>> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 08:22:38PM -0700, Ryan Murray wrote:
>> >> Package:
>> >> linux-image-2.6.12-1-powerpc,linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6,kernel-package
>> >> Severity: serious
>> >>
>> >> The problem:
>> >> * linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6 build-depends on kernel images.
>> >> * build daemons install packages in noninteractive mode
>> >> * the kernel images do not install successfully in
>> >> noninteractive mode:
>>
>> > This is not a linux kernel package, but exclusively a
>> > kernel-package issue, which provides the postinst and co scripts,
>> > and needs to be made debconf aware.
>>
>> > Manoj promised some rewrite, modularization and debconfification
>> > for post-sarge, but i don't know what the current planes are for
>> > this.
>>
>> None of that promises to make kernel images install
>> non-interactively, if installing kernel images may make the system
>> unbootable. The primary concern remains end users who install
>> kernel images.
> Ah, you are wrong, if the scripts where using debconf, then you
> could preseed it, or use the non-interactive mode or whatever.
Wrong, eh? Indeed, it is you who have no idea whast is being
talked about here. Even if debconf is used, the kernel image can
choose to abort install unless a human answers the question, and that
is likely to be what shall happen when I code debconf in.
> The current questions are mostly worthless (at least on powerpc)
> anyway, and are just an annoyance that should go away.
Opinions with no rationale are unlikely to sway me on this.
> I believe that the kernel package should work out of the box and not
> need manual intervention to set the initrd thingy, since the kernel
> image knows perfectly that it needs an initrd or not, so why have it
> have the logic to know about it and tell the user instead of just
> doing the right thing ?
Again, you seem to be missing the point. Some boot loaders
require intervention before they can handle initrd images (indeed,
booth grub and lilo do, as far as I can tell). Unfortunately, it is
not feasible to know what boot loader is being used (I have both grub
and lilo on my machines), nor is it feasible to tell whether the boot
loader can handle initrd's -- and no way am I goona add bunches of
code to parse every tom dick and harry bootloader config script.
As I have said elsewhere in this report, working correctly,
and not rendering the system unbootable, trumps non-interactive
installs.
> I think now is the moment to think about the futur of
> kernel-package, and what will happen to it for etch. Could you tell
> us a bit more about what your plans are for that ?
My plans are not to remove functionality that makes it easy
for novices to use packaged kernel images.
So, debconf or no debconf, there is no surety that kernel
images shall install when debconf frontend is set to non
interactive -- unless there is some way to dete t that proceed shal
not hose the end user system.
manoj
--
You can't break eggs without making an omelet.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
