On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:26:32 +0200 maximilian attems wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 04:25:53PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > I had a machine that was had a poorly supported sata_mv chipset;
> > dapper nor sarge w/ 2.6.15/2.6.16 images would install onto it. I
> > had to make a custom cd w/
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 04:25:53PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
>
> Here's a use case where having initramfs-tools unconditionally update
> initramfs images is a bad thing (at the very least, violating the
> principal of least surprise).
you use an plural, which is wrong.
initramfs-tools updates
Hi,
Here's a use case where having initramfs-tools unconditionally update
initramfs images is a bad thing (at the very least, violating the
principal of least surprise).
I had a machine that was had a poorly supported sata_mv chipset; dapper
nor sarge w/ 2.6.15/2.6.16 images would install onto it
posting our irc conversation with mdz about current update-initramfs calls:
21:29 mdz: do you remember why you added to initramfs-tools the
update-initramfs call?
21:30 more precisely to the postinst
21:30 * vorlon perks up
21:30 the changelog has no notice to an bug report.
21:32 vorlon: th
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:24:22PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > Having evms call update-initramfs at install time is completely gratuitous,
> > because the system *won't* be set up for evms at the time of the evms
> > postinst: either the update-initramfs will be a complete no-op and have to
Le vendredi 14 avril 2006 à 21:24 +0200, maximilian attems a écrit :
> Having evms call update-initramfs at install time is completely gratuitous,
> because the system *won't* be set up for evms at the time of the evms
> postinst: either the update-initramfs will be a complete no-op and have
initramfs differs from initrd as it's no fs, but just an archive.
you can easily append stuff to it that wasn't inside yet.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:18:59PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > by design initramfs-tools needs that:
> > a) allows e
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:18:59PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> i don't agree with the severity of this bug.
> i'll present my arguments below.
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:29:06AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > We've had this conversation before on IRC, and I don't believe there is a
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:18:59 +0200 maximilian attems wrote:
> by design initramfs-tools needs that:
> a) allows each hook to add it's boot device detection scripts
> if you want evms root you simply install evms.
> thanks to it's initramfs hook you get evms root support.
>
> b) prevents races in
severity 362064 wishlist
stop
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> severity 362064 serious
> quit
i don't agree with the severity of this bug.
i'll present my arguments below.
been busy the last 2 weeks and see the other bug was escaleted too.
i disagree with the severity of #358397 to
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 362064 wishlist
Bug#362064: udev: udev tries to write to an installed, working initrd without
asking
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> stop
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug trac
severity 362064 serious
quit
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:29:06AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > __> sudo dpkg --configure udev
> > Setting up udev (0.089-1) ...
> > touch: cannot touch `/boot/initrd.img-2.6.16-selinux1-1-skas3-v9-pre9':
> > Read-only file system
> > /usr/sbin/mkinitra
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 362064 serious
Bug#362064: udev: udev tries to write to an installed, working initrd without
asking
Severity set to `serious'.
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug trac
64 grave
Bug#362064: udev: udev tries to write to an installed, working initrd without
asking
Severity set to `grave'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--
To UNSU
On 13 Apr 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, it is true I did not check the postinst; I just saw that error
>> message _after_ I had gotten initramfs to install by hacking
>> /var/lib/dpkg/info/initramfs-tools.postisnt. What exactly was
>>
severity 362064 grave
thanks
Hi,
I issue is not whther or not the initramfs has to be changed,
nor whether in this particular instance nothing bad happened. The
issue is silently changing a critical subsyten silently, where a bug
in initramfs-tools would potentially have made a mach
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 362064 wishlist
Bug#362064: udev: udev tries to write to an installed, working initrd without
asking
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> stop
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug trac
severity 362064 wishlist
stop
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Package: udev
> Version: 0.089-1
> Severity: grave
i neither agree for the severity,
it didn't make your system unbootable.
> __> sudo dpkg --configure udev
> Setting up udev (0.089-1) ...
> touch: cannot touc
On Apr 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, it is true I did not check the postinst; I just saw that
> error message _after_ I had gotten initramfs to install by hacking
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/initramfs-tools.postisnt. What exactly was trying
> to modify my boot mechani
On 12 Apr 2006, Marco d'Itri stated:
> reassign 362064 initramfs-tools
> thanks
>
> On Apr 12, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Why is udev trying to write to a working boot mechanism
>> without asking?
> Why do you believe that udev creates initramfs images?
Hmm, it is tr
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 362064 initramfs-tools
Bug#362064: udev: udev tries to write to an installed, working initrd without
asking
Bug reassigned from package `udev' to `initramfs-tools'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you
reassign 362064 initramfs-tools
thanks
On Apr 12, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is udev trying to write to a working boot mechanism
> without asking?
Why do you believe that udev creates initramfs images?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
22 matches
Mail list logo
