Re: symlinks in /boot vs. symlinks in /
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:43:00PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Why does Debian drop symlinks to vmlinuz and initrd.gz into the root
> directory? The FHS does allow it (after all), but it's butt-ugly, if
> you ask me.
> Can we please use the upcoming release to clean this issue up?
How about we futz with this sort of thing near the beginning of a
release cycle, not near the end? This change requires:
* co-ordination of a number of packages
* communication with maintainer scripts generated by kernel-package,
which is complex enough that expecting bugs when using it in
non-default mode is not unreasonable
* explicit action by every port maintainer to make sure their
bootloaders do something sensible and change the corresponding
For some ports, this change is required; for others, it's largely
cosmetic. The ports where it's required have probably already done the
work, or we wouldn't be seeing success reports on them.
I made the change from / to /boot for powerpc a while back; it did take
a number of days to co-ordinate everything carefully so that nothing
would break in the interim period, and I wouldn't have dreamed of doing
it for a port I couldn't personally test. I don't think it's appropriate
to require everybody to change this at this late date in d-i's first
At this point, we need to be concentrating on things which are broken
and require stabilization, not things which work and are merely
subjectively "butt-ugly, if you ask me".
> - change the template default in rootskel.
> - change the bootloaders to look for /boot/vmlinuz instead of
Changing the bootloader installers in d-i now to accept symlinks either
in / or in /boot (i.e. to be strictly more tolerant) would make some
sense; but it should be at the discretion of the port maintainers, must
be well-tested with both rootskel defaults, and we should not consider
this a release blocker in any way.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]