hello michael, On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Hi Maks, > > I guess you followed the discussion on the d-d mailing list about this > issue. Imho it actually makes sense, to have a consistent > update-initramfs-behaviour between all packages modifying the initramfs. > Tim's proposal is not that bad either imho:
d-d is the wrong ml, this has already been x times discussed on d-kernel. > > useless debconf proliferation is bad. > > This debconf message would only be within update-initramfs. Other > packages using initramfs-tools would only *read* the debconf setting. So > talking about debconf proliferation is a mild exaggeration. > You could also achieve the same via a setting in a configuration file > but using debconf is more userfriendly. no debconf is _not_ userfriendly. and the config makes _zero_ sense. update-initramfs with -a it has a well defined meaning. > > second if you want to update all initramfs it is easy to do so. > > Sure it is. But the point is to have a consistent behaviour between all > packages modifying the initramfs. > Having one package use "-k all" (as madm already does) defeats the idea > of having a backup initramfs. -k all is risky due to several reasons. the backup initramfs is a different issue. > > third this does not belong to initramfs-tools at all. > > Sure it does. initramfs-tools should be the package which defines the > default behaviour of update-initramfs. Other packages should *not* > modify this setting but only read it. no. initramfs-tools provides a framework it has no business in enforcing a dubious policy. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
