On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 21:31 +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > At the moment it sounds like it isn't even possible to determine that > > you are running on a QNAP device at all. Remember that once the package > > exists on x86 people could try and install on a whitebox x86 server or > > any random piece of hardware, we need to do the right (i.e. > > non-destructive) thing in this case. > Well do we anything really destructive? Sure we send stuff to some > serial devices...
Which could be destructive, for all we know, since we don't know what is on the other end nor what it will do. > but there are plenty other packages which do similar > things and allow the user to shoot him into his feet if he's stupid... > If we add a warning in the package description that this is really for > QNAP devices only... it should IMHO be enough. I'm afraid I don't think that is sufficient I'm not going to go down this route. > > Even once we know it is a QNAP I don't think we can safely just probe > > serial ports looking for things. > Well... I would make the devices configurable and fully put it into the > user's responsibility to set up a qcontrol.conf... Yes, I think on x86 the default qcontrol.conf will be empty and the user will have to configure it. Or maybe I'll stick in a debconf question. It's all a bit moot until there is working support for at least one x86 platform though. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
