Bug#550584: Running flash-kernel automatically from postinst
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:26:36PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> 14:08 < tbm> maks: do you think you could comment on the patch in #550584?
> 14:11 < tbm> or bwh
> 14:11 < tbm> I don't have time to look into this :(
> 14:16 < maks> we can check against DEB_MAINT_PARAMS as postinst of linux-2.6 is directly calling us
> 14:16 < maks> not sure how this translates for flash-kernel.
> 14:27 < bwh> tbm: "I wonder if we need any code to make sure flash-kernel is not executed several times when
> updating/installing several kernels at the same
> 14:27 < bwh> time"
> 14:28 < bwh> First you need to decide what the intended result is when multiple kernel packages are installed
> 14:29 < bwh> Maybe flash-kernel should only run automatically if a single package is installed
> 14:36 < tbm> I think it should be called, ideally with the highest version number
> 15:02 < bwh> and how is that defined?
> 15:06 < tbm> dpkg --compare-versions
In this case the kernel team better stop using -trunk- in their versions
since that is considered newer than -1- by dpkg --compare-versions and
grub and others. Using -0trunk- would be OK, but -trunk- is a very bad
idea. It already caused a lot of hassle for testing users because grub
would always list the older -trunk- kernel before the newer -1- kernel.
> 15:06 < tbm> is there a way to know which versions are being installed?
> 15:07 < tbm> in any case, any behaviour is better than what we have now. which is that flash-kernel doesn't get run when you
> install a kernel package with a new ABI name
> 15:11 < bwh> There's no way to know which versions are being installed, but you could use a trigger
> 15:11 < bwh> depends on whether you think it's acceptable to defer the invocation of flash-kernel
> 15:20 < tbm> a trigger based on what?
> 15:22 < bwh> based on triggering from your kernel postinst hook
> 15:23 < tbm> ah ok. yeah that sounds good to me
>
> Anyway, I don't know anything about triggers and don't have the time
> to look into this.
>
> Steve, Joey: can you look into this?
--
Len Sorensen
Reply to: