On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 07:47:21PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I'm not talking about installing multiple kernels. I'm talking about
> setting the wanted configuration for how multiple kernels should be
> handled on the installed system after the installation. And that
> setting would be
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 09:02:04PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> That sounds to me like addressing the wrong problem. Maybe what should
> be done is that update-initramfs updates *all* the images, whatever
> happens, but a copy of the kernel and initramfs images used to boot the
> system as it is at
On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 23:06 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.20.2102 +0200]:
> > That sounds to me like addressing the wrong problem. Maybe what should
> > be done is that update-initramfs updates *all* the images, whatever
> > happens, but a copy
also sprach Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.20.2102 +0200]:
> That sounds to me like addressing the wrong problem. Maybe what should
> be done is that update-initramfs updates *all* the images, whatever
> happens, but a copy of the kernel and initramfs images used to boot the
> system as i
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 04:35:27PM +0200, David Härdeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:08:02AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> >Anyway, I propose that update-initramfs just loses the -k switch or
> >provides a new wrapper that packages like cryptsetup and mdadm just
> >ca
Please cc: the bug report
On Sun, 20 May 2007 16:35:27 +0200
David Härdeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:08:02AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> >They can set their debconf priority. It's not something to avoid,
> >adding debconf questions
> >
> >Anyway, I propose that
[Gabor Gombas]
> But why would you want to install _multiple_ kernels in a preseeded
> install while _not_ building an initrd for some of them?
I'm not talking about installing multiple kernels. I'm talking about
setting the wanted configuration for how multiple kernels should be
handled on the i
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:08:02AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> They can set their debconf priority. It's not something to avoid,
> adding debconf questions.
Debconf has a much higher maintenance cost than a config file - you have
to provide translations, you must write maintainer scripts etc.
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 01:59:20PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Remember that using debconf allow the setting to be preseeded during
> installation. Editing a config file by hand is less convenient for
> preconfigured installations.
But why would you want to install _multiple_ kernels in
On 20-May-07, 04:08 (CDT), martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.19.1832 +0200]:
> > > Come on. `useless debconf proliferation'? The question has medium
> > > priority. I can also make it an configration option somewhere and use
> > > th
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:08:02AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Anyway, I propose that update-initramfs just loses the -k switch or
provides a new wrapper that packages like cryptsetup and mdadm just
call without worrying whether it will update all initrds or just the
current one.
I agree...us
[Gabor Gombas]
> I'd also say a debconf question is overkill. People who understand what
> the option means can edit a config file by hand.
Remember that using debconf allow the setting to be preseeded during
installation. Editing a config file by hand is less convenient for
preconfigured instal
also sprach Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.19.1832 +0200]:
> > Come on. `useless debconf proliferation'? The question has medium
> > priority. I can also make it an configration option somewhere and use
> > that, but it was just a convenient why to get info from a user.
>
> I'd also say
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:26:25PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> Come on. `useless debconf proliferation'? The question has medium
> priority. I can also make it an configration option somewhere and use
> that, but it was just a convenient why to get info from a user.
I'd also say a debconf questi
On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:48:54 +0200
maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tags 425050 wontfix
> stop
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 07:32:45PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra (tdykstra) wrote:
> >
> > I created a patch to ask a debconf question (medium priority) if
> > update-initramfs should update al
15 matches
Mail list logo
