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 th
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 22:37 -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 04:27:53 +0100, Ben Hutchings
> wrote:
> > - I filed a bug on elilo (#594650)
>
> I'll be traveling for the next week with limited net access and time.
> If you want this attended to quickly, a suitable patch would be w
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 wo
On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 09:35 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 05:44:32AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:55 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Actually, what I want is a consistent way to disable bootloader
> > > invocation for all bootloaders, without nece
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 05:44:32AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:55 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Actually, what I want is a consistent way to disable bootloader
> > invocation for all bootloaders, without necessarily requiring the
> > bootloader package not to be installe
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 04:27:53 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> - I filed a bug on elilo (#594650)
I'll be traveling for the next week with limited net access and time.
If you want this attended to quickly, a suitable patch would be welcomed.
Bdale
pgpOB9ZsAV4lz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 05:44 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> OK, so something like this:
>
> "Boot loader packages must be installable on the filesystem in a
> disabled state where they will not write to the boot sector or other
> non-filesystem storage. While a boot loader is disabled, any ke
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:55 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:08:47PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:55 +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
> > > * Ben Hutchings [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:45:36PM
> > > +0100]:
> > > > If you insist on installing such a packa
(Removed [e]l...@packages.debian.org from Cc)
* Colin Watson [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 04:55:28PM +0100]:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:08:47PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:55 +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
> > > * Ben Hutchings [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:45:36PM
> > > +0100]:
* Stephen Powell [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 11:47:13AM -0400]:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:29:46 -0400 (EDT), Michael Prokop wrote:
> > I'm aware of this, though I'd prefer a clean interface and not hacks. :)
> > Especially since I'm not aware of a way how to chmod -x the files before
> > installing the
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:08:47PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:55 +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
> > * Ben Hutchings [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:45:36PM
> > +0100]:
> > > If you insist on installing such a package in the live system then it
> > > needs to support a safe confi
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:37:29 -0400 (EDT), Michael Prokop wrote:
>
> , [ aptitude changelog lilo/unstable | head ]
> | Get: Changelog of lilo
> | lilo (1:22.8-8.2) unstable; urgency=high
> |
> | * Non-maintainer upload.
> | * Add kernel and initramfs hook scripts to ensure lilo is reinstall
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:29:46 -0400 (EDT), Michael Prokop wrote:
>
> I'm aware of this, though I'd prefer a clean interface and not hacks. :)
>
> Especially since I'm not aware of a way how to chmod -x the files before
> installing the packages that fail during installation then. ;)
>
I haven't
* Stephen Powell [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 11:29:47AM -0400]:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:08:47 -0400 (EDT), Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Report a bug on lilo; I suppose it should warn but still 'succeed' if
> > /etc/lilo.conf is missing. elilo should do the same. This is my bug
> > and I can fix it. :-)
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:08:47 -0400 (EDT), Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> Report a bug on lilo; I suppose it should warn but still 'succeed' if
> /etc/lilo.conf is missing. elilo should do the same. This is my bug
> and I can fix it. :-) No idea about zipl but I doubt you care about
> s390 live media.
* Stephen Powell [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 11:18:39AM -0400]:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:55:43 -0400 (EDT), Michael Prokop
> wrote:
> > Jepp. But isn't this (possibility for user configuration) exactly
> > what Colin is requesting?
> > I'm for example shipping lilo and grub with the live system (so th
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:55:43 -0400 (EDT), Michael Prokop
wrote:
> Jepp. But isn't this (possibility for user configuration) exactly
> what Colin is requesting?
>
> I'm for example shipping lilo and grub with the live system (so the
> binaries as well as its documentation is available to the user
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:55 +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
> * Ben Hutchings [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:45:36PM +0100]:
[...]
> > If you insist on installing such a package in the live system then it
> > needs to support a safe configuration where it won't do anything until
> > the user configures it t
* Ben Hutchings [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:45:36PM +0100]:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:24 +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
> > * Ben Hutchings [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:09:06PM
> > +0100]:
> > > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 14:54 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > > Consider building a filesystem image inside a c
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:24 +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
> * Ben Hutchings [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:09:06PM +0100]:
> > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 14:54 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > > Consider building a filesystem image inside a chroot which one is about
> > > to build into a live filesystem image
* Ben Hutchings [Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:09:06PM +0100]:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 14:54 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Consider building a filesystem image inside a chroot which one is about
> > to build into a live filesystem image with mksquashfs or something. In
> > the event that it contains f
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 14:54 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
[...]
> Consider building a filesystem image inside a chroot which one is about
> to build into a live filesystem image with mksquashfs or something. In
> the event that it contains flash-kernel, then the flash-kernel hook
> (once such a thing
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 02:45:44PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 14:25 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > In the case where one is building an image and part of the image build
> > involves running update-initramfs, it would be useful to have a single
> > guaranteed way to disable
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 14:25 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Package: initramfs-tools
> Version: 0.98
> Severity: wishlist
> User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
> Usertags: origin-ubuntu maverick
>
> In the case where one is building an image and part of the image build
> involves running update-initr
Package: initramfs-tools
Version: 0.98
Severity: wishlist
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu maverick
In the case where one is building an image and part of the image build
involves running update-initramfs, it would be useful to have a single
guaranteed way to disable ins
25 matches
Mail list logo
