On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:38:05PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 17:22 +0100 schrieb Colin Watson: > > I'm sorry to have to say this, but the kernel-img.conf /sbin/update-grub > > migration has been a hopelessly confusing mess. Please don't use it as > > an example of anything except how *not* to do things. > > > > Either /sbin/update-grub should have continued to be supported forever > > as a symlink without warnings, or (preferably) something should have > > taken care of detecting the situation and rewriting the configuration > > file automatically. Robert even suggested a way to do this in #361929, > > but it was never done for some reason that is mysterious to me. > > Complaining about the situation and aborting is the worst of both > > worlds; it often merely throws users into confusion, or at best leaves > > them cursing about how Debian didn't just sort out its own mistakes > > rather than making users take care of it by hand. > > > > I understand, of course, that there are all sorts of reasons why these > > sorts of things happen at the time; but if you look at the change as a > > whole then it was very clearly far from optimal. > > I saw that bug report now for the first time. > (I just jumped in almost exactly a year ago into the grub packages). > I thought about running sed over kernel-imf.conf too but both Robert and > me were unsure if policy allowed that and #grub-devel said so. > But if even you would prefer to just automatically edit it then we'll do > so.
I'd definitely prefer that, yes. If you're just going to fail hard if kernel-img.conf contains /sbin/update-grub, and the only way to fix the situation is to edit that file, then the preinst might as well just edit the file itself. I don't see that we're really doing anyone any favours by just bailing out. Thanks, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
