Re: Grub vs. linux-image-2.6.32 conundrum

2010-04-01 Thread Stephen Powell
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:08:29 -0400 (EDT), John Hasler wrote: > Stephen Powell writes: >> If there is a bug ... > There clearly is. >> ... But as for it's operation, it is working as designed. > > Design errors are still bugs. Debian bug number 432025 may be of interest to you. This bug was opene

Re: Grub vs. linux-image-2.6.32 conundrum

2010-03-31 Thread Stephen Powell
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:24:12 -0400 (EDT), Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31 2010, Stephen Powell wrote: >> As best as I can tell, kernel-package was at one time used by the >> Debian kernel team to create official Debian stock kernel image >> packages. But at some point in the past there wa

Re: Grub vs. linux-image-2.6.32 conundrum

2010-03-31 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Wed, Mar 31 2010, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:08:29 -0400 (EDT), John Hasler wrote: >> Stephen Powell wrote: >>> If there is a bug... >> >> There clearly is. >>> >>> But as for it's operation, it is working as designed. >> >> Design errors are still bugs. > > The main diffe

Re: Grub vs. linux-image-2.6.32 conundrum

2010-03-31 Thread Stephen Powell
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:08:29 -0400 (EDT), John Hasler wrote: > Stephen Powell wrote: >> If there is a bug... > > There clearly is. >> >> But as for it's operation, it is working as designed. > > Design errors are still bugs. The main difference between a bug and a feature is that a feature is do

Re: Grub vs. linux-image-2.6.32 conundrum

2010-03-31 Thread John Hasler
Stephen Powell writes: > *You* didn't modify /etc/kernel-img.conf; but the *Debian installer*, > on your behalf, *did* modify it during installation when it selected > grub as the bootloader. Changing boot loaders after installation > often requires manually editing this file. > If there is a bug

Re: Grub vs. linux-image-2.6.32 conundrum

2010-03-31 Thread Stephen Powell
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:48:50 -0400 (EDT), briand wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:25:49 -0400 (EDT), Stephen Powell wrote: >> This file is classified as a "configuration file", >> and therefore user modifications >> to it are preserved. > > except that I didn't modify it, so it should have been over

Re: Grub vs. linux-image-2.6.32 conundrum

2010-03-31 Thread briand
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:25:49 -0400 (EDT) Stephen Powell wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:04:19 -0400 (EDT), Peter E wrote: > > > > As described in discussion a few weeks back, Lilo is installed > > in place of Grub in Squeeze on the IBM NetVista 6578-RAU > > here. That's necessary for now. > >

Re: Grub vs. linux-image-2.6.32 conundrum

2010-03-31 Thread Stephen Powell
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:04:19 -0400 (EDT), Peter E wrote: > > As described in discussion a few weeks back, Lilo is installed > in place of Grub in Squeeze on the IBM NetVista 6578-RAU > here. That's necessary for now. > > But then a system update runs update-initramfs which tries > to run upda

Re: Grub vs. linux-image-2.6.32 conundrum

2010-03-30 Thread Tom H
> As described in discussion a few weeks back, Lilo is installed > in place of Grub in Squeeze on the IBM NetVista 6578-RAU > here.  That's necessary for now. > But then a system update runs update-initramfs which tries > to run update-grub which is not there.  I should be able > to comment out th

Re: Grub vs. linux-image-2.6.32 conundrum

2010-03-30 Thread Ron Johnson
On 2010-03-30 17:04, peasth...@shaw.ca wrote: As described in discussion a few weeks back, Lilo is installed in place of Grub in Squeeze on the IBM NetVista 6578-RAU here. That's necessary for now. But then a system update runs update-initramfs which tries to run update-grub which is not the