On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 09:44:21AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: Thanks for your response, Frans!
> On Friday 29 January 2010, Josef Wolf wrote: > > Since the interface name can be used to decide whether to activate vlan > > support, no new debconf questions (like netcfg/enable_vlan or something) > > are needed, IMHO. > > Doesn't that already answer your question about the user interface? :-) I just wanted to double check that this method would be in-line with the design of d-i and the opinions of the core-developer. As you can see, it was good to ask :-) > One request: please make vlan support optional so that netcfg still works > when the bits needed for it are not available. It's probably not relevant > for all architectures. Hmm, I intended to make it the other way around: netcfg would anna-install the vlan stuff only when it sees that the chosen interface matches one of the patterns for vlan interfaces. > For installs where netcfg is run after anna (CD-based installs), the > loading of additional udebs should probably be done by the relevant part > of hw-detect (ethdetect) and not by netcfg itself. But at that time the interface chosen interface is not known. So deducing from chosen interface name (as outlined above) is not possible and this method would only work with preseeding or if additional questions are asked. > And for e.g. netboot > images the vlan udeb would need to be included in the initrd for relevant > architectures. Oh, I've completely forgotten about netboot. To be honest, I have no clue what this means exactly. Can you point me to some information about that? BTW: Actually there are two udebs: - one udeb created from vlan.deb (only the XC-Package-Type line needs to be added to debian/control) - the kernel modules would be created via kernel-wedge Is it OK to do it this way or does d-i have its own framework to create the udebs? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
