Bob Proulx <b...@proulx.com> writes: >> But even with that, yes, it was sloppy not to catch it, but isn't that >> just the kind of place where a warning of some kind might be well >> placed. > > It is okay if you want to keep your /boot not mounted and only mount > it when needed. That's fine. But I think it is your responsibililty > to do it that way if that is what you want to do. > > There are an infinite number of possible local customizations. Your > local customization to keep /boot not mounted is simply one of an > infinite number of local customizations that might cause problems. It > isn't possible for any package to handle an infinite number of > possibilies. They are only expected to handle "normal" systems. > Therefore if you are doing that type of special thing then I think it > is your responsibilty to own that problem entirely and make sure it is > mounted when the package scripts need it.
I think you just convinced me that its not a good plan to start with the warnings... like you point out... where would it end. I guess I just got caught out being dead headed, and there is really no cure for that, other than to pay attention. Had I noticed that grub was going to get updated then I would have knew to mount it. As it was I didn't really scroll down thru all the updates (I did this particular one in the gui updater tool). There were 187 of them and I was too lazy... Well, as always laziness has consequences. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mxbjbp5k....@newsguy.com
