On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 09:30 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:10:42PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 16:18 +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > > Hi Ben, > > > > > > Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> (2011-05-16): > > > > On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 17:17 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > > Package: base-installer > > > > > Severity: normal > > > > > > > > > > Now that the various bootloaders have hooks to handle kernel > > > > > installation, or otherwise automatically handle all kernels via their > > > > > actual paths, do_symlinks doesn't seem necessary anymore. Please > > > > > consider defaulting it to "no". > > > > > > > > Josh, this is simply not true. Only grub and syslinux create menus of > > > > all installed kernels. I hope to get this changed for wheezy, but can't > > > > promise it. > > > > > > can you please send us an update to see how we stand WRT this bug report? > > > > I haven't done anything about this and don't expect to do so any time > > soon. > > > > I think the GRUB maintainers are hoping to be able to support ~all our > > Linux architectures, so we may at some point be able to stop supporting > > direct loading of the kernel by the stupider boot-loaders. We're not > > there yet, though. > > Do the different architectures use different pre-seeds, or different > base-installer configurations? Might it be possible to keep > do_symlinks=yes on architectures where the bootloader requires the > symlinks, while eliminating it on the architectures that no longer need > that?
It might but I hardly think it's worth the effort. For example lilo
still exists so we can't get rid of them on x86 yet.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
- Albert Einstein
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
