adding info about an irc discussion.
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:11:37PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> Well, this is the point. We don't have a consistent policy. Every
> package does it's own, which for the given reasons is not a good
> solution. If you have a better solution than the given one, please tell us.
>
> That the topic has come up several times, as you said yourself, should
> be and indicator that the current behaviour of initramfs-tools is not ideal.
>
> If you don't like the implementation via debconf, as Tim suggested, this
> is something that can be changed and discussed.
> But the idea in general is the right one, imho.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
22:59 <mbiebl> maks: what's so bad at giving the user the choice of having all
initramfs files getting updated if set a safe default?
23:00 <maks> mbiebl: perverts the -k <kernelversion> interface
23:00 <mbiebl> I don't understand what you mean? Could you elaborate?
23:01 <mbiebl> I don't mean to redefine the meaning of -u
23:01 <maks> but?
23:01 <mbiebl> Packages using initramfs-tools would read the config setting and
depending on that either run -u or -u -k all
23:02 <mbiebl> So the meaning of -u stays the same.
23:02 <mbiebl> Maybe you misunderstood that.
23:03 <maks> and how would that help uswsusp or mdadm ?
23:03 <maks> yes i misunderstood the initial proposal
23:06 <mbiebl> people using uswsusp or mdadm would choose to have all initramfs
files updated.
ok, proposition is for example to change update_initramfs to all
and let the postinst of i-t, uswsusp, mdadm, usplash and so on
check against that setting before running -u or -u -k all.
file bug reports against any package that don't check against..
update_initramfs is already settable in /etc/i-t/update-initramfs-conf
thanks for feedback
--
maks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
