[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: console-tools-libs: Priority required causes dselect problems on serial console machines



Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> writes:

> * console-tools (and thus console-tools-libs and console-data) are
>   "Section: base; Priority: required", because it is an important
>   piece of people installing a workstation, and seems as such to fall
>   under the "necessary for the proper functioning of the system"
>   clause in the Policy Manual (think of a non-matching keyboard).

Actually, ATM, we have console-data in base, but not console-tools*.
Maybe this is a problem...

> * I attempted on my system to mark as "purge" the console-* packages,
>   left dselect, re-entered it, and my choices were preserved.

> * Thus the problem does not seem (to me) to be in the priorities as
>   handled by dselect, but in the priorities as handled by dbootstrap
>   and friends.

Here you must be somewhat confused.  As far as I know, (a)
console-data is used on the rescue disk as well as the base system.
(b) There is no priority handling in dbootstrap at all! 

> What are the real problems of having these packages installed, anyway,
> apart from the problem of wasted diskspace ?  The default conf does
> not cause any console operations to be done (or it is probably a
> bug).

I would very much prefer not to have to purge these packages for
serial-console, but if console-* is causing problems for serial
consoles, instead make it detect when we're on serial console and act
appropriately in that case.

Perhaps Eric Delaunay could enlighten us all...

> In any case, I think we would better not make less intuitive the
> configuration of a workstation because of serial-console issues,
> mainly because people installing a serial-console machine will
> presumably be experienced users.

I agree, but I don't see why we can't have one base system which works
for headless as well as standard "headful" operation.

-- 
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>


Reply to: