Re: Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

2024-04-26 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Marco d'Itri (2024-04-26): > On Apr 26, Michael Tokarev wrote: > > > So, should I disable module utils in busybox-udeb now? > I think so. I haven't gotten any requests / seen any reasons to keep it; so, yes, please feel free to remove it whenever is convenient for you. > > Is kmod udeb ready a

Re: Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

2024-04-26 Thread Michael Tokarev
Ok, I'm removing whole modutils from busybox udeb (besides depmod, this is lsmod, insmod, rmmod, and modprobe). All these are provided by kmod-udeb as far as I can see (as symlinks to kod). -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to rsa4096) since 2024-04-24. New key: rsa4096/61AD3D98ECDF2C8E 9D8B

Re: Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

2024-04-26 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Apr 26, Michael Tokarev wrote: > So, should I disable module utils in busybox-udeb now? I think so. > Is kmod udeb ready and used in d-i already, or does it need some > prep first? AFAIK it works. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

2024-04-26 Thread Michael Tokarev
09.04.2024 16:48, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Marco d'Itri (2024-04-09): Yes. Nowadays kmod has many more features related to compressed modules and verification of signatures. Can we agree that kmod should provide these programs for d-i? Or can the d-i maintainers just tell us what they want? I m

Re: Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

2024-04-09 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Hi, Marco d'Itri (2024-04-09): > Yes. Nowadays kmod has many more features related to compressed modules > and verification of signatures. > Can we agree that kmod should provide these programs for d-i? > Or can the d-i maintainers just tell us what they want? I meant to come back to this after

Re: Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

2024-04-09 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jan 06, Michael Tokarev wrote: > Yes, some utils in busybox aren't as good as regular implementations. For Yes. Nowadays kmod has many more features related to compressed modules and verification of signatures. Can we agree that kmod should provide these programs for d-i? Or can the d-i maint

Bug#1060134: kmod-udeb vs busybox-udeb: agree on who ships depmod

2024-01-06 Thread Helmut Grohne
Package: kmod-udeb,busybox-udeb Severity: serious Justification: file conflict X-Debbugs-Cc: Cyril Brulebois , debian-boot@lists.debian.org Hi Cyril, On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 04:31:44AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > d-i daily builds now FTBFS everywhere due to the merge-usr step, with > the foll