Re: What to expect following major update

[Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com>]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:

>> But even with that, yes, it was sloppy not to catch it, but isn't that
>> just the kind of place where a warning of some kind might be well
>> placed.
>
> It is okay if you want to keep your /boot not mounted and only mount
> it when needed.  That's fine.  But I think it is your responsibililty
> to do it that way if that is what you want to do.
>
> There are an infinite number of possible local customizations.  Your
> local customization to keep /boot not mounted is simply one of an
> infinite number of local customizations that might cause problems.  It
> isn't possible for any package to handle an infinite number of
> possibilies.  They are only expected to handle "normal" systems.
> Therefore if you are doing that type of special thing then I think it
> is your responsibilty to own that problem entirely and make sure it is
> mounted when the package scripts need it.

I think you just convinced me that its not a good plan to start with
the warnings... like you point out... where would it end.

I guess I just got caught out being dead headed, and there is really
no cure for that, other than to pay attention.  Had I noticed that
grub was going to get updated then I would have knew to mount it.  As
it was I didn't really scroll down thru all the updates (I did this
particular one in the gui updater tool).  There were 187 of them and I
was too lazy... Well, as always laziness has consequences.