Re: debconf; unattended package installation; lvm2.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 03:07:53PM +0200, shaulka@012.net.il wrote:
> 1) debconf talks about setting {false,true} flags to questions. Does
> the set of possible flags predefined or can I invent a flag of my
> own? For example, can I have an "install the package unattendedly"
> flag?
"noninteractively", and that would make the flag boolean (see
debconf-devel(7)).
> 2) The lvm2 deb doesn't have a config file in the sense of debconf
> config file. What subtle reasons might be for the lack of that file?
I believe the config script exists to allow most/all of the
"configuration" to happen immediately after package retrieval, rather
than spread out over the package unpack/postinst stage. By
"configuration", I mean "answering debconf questions", and not
"calling postinst configure" (which is what typically acts on the
results of the configuration values).
But I think the config script is optional; if it doesn't exist, then
all its logic is in the postinst script (well, in the case, the
preinst).
> 3) The lvm2 deb uses
>
> if ! dpkg --compare-versions $(uname -r) ge '2.6.12'; then
> db_fset lvm2/kernel seen false
> db_input critical lvm2/kernel || true
> db_go
> exit 1
> fi
>
> This prevents creating an nfsroot automatically here, since the
> machine on which the nfsroot is installed uses an older kernel
> version. In case upgrading the kernel is not acceptable, what
> other solutions are there?
I don't understand the details of this problem ..
> I thought about asking the lvm maintaner to add a low priority
> debconf question about unattended installation with a default
> of "false". The critical question from above would not be
> displayed when unattended installation would be set to "true".
> In that way only users that install unattendedly and know what
> they are doing would set it to "true". Am I right?
You are right that such a thing is possible, though it is perhaps not
the best approach..
> Am I correct that adding an unattended flag to the critical
> question won't help becuase one can not have a default value
> for a flag?
You can surely have a default value.
I would suggest to bring up the problem with the lvm maintainer, and
ask for some way to allow noninteractive installation. I don't know
anything about such things, but I'm guessing that setting "seen" to
"false" might prevents such things. You should surely read
"Unattended Package Installation" from debconf(7) though, since there
seem to be relevant environment variables you can set (especiall
DEBCONF_DB_OVERRIDE).
Justin
Reply to: