Bug#403031: proposed patch to clean the finish-install serial console detection.
On Mon, Dec 25, 2006 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:07, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Err, can you tell me the risk of regression. Please speak the issue
> > with someone else, like Colin and Joey, or Bastian, and weigth the
> > actual risk.
>
> OK. So let me tell you why this patch will BREAK some installations.
>
> finish-install.d/90console has:
> <snip>
> inst_pid=$(pidof debian-installer | sed "s/ /\n/g" | sort -n | head -n 1)
> rawconsole=$(readlink /proc/${inst_pid}/fd/0)
> </snip>
>
> Why does it take the 'head'?
> Reason is that during installs using network console there are _two_
> debian-installer processes: the original one (possibly started over
> sercon), and the second one started over ssh.
>
> The second one will be the one finish-install is run from. This instance
> will have TERM_TYPE=network, and not TERM_TYPE=serial like the original
> one. So, in that case, even though the install was started over serial
> console, the installed system would not be set up to use serial console
> (while this works correctly with the current logic).
Cool, i knew there was something. I guess the good solution here is to set a
debconf variable in rootskel which would be there to check it.
> /me is so glad he is conservative with patches like this and takes the
> time to think them through and really test them instead of applying them
> blindly.
/me is so glade you took the time to investigate the issue, instead of
dismissing it out of hand as your first reply indicated.
> Hopefully this will teach you to not dismiss my concerns out of hand in
> the future, though I won't hold my breath.
Well, please re-read my mails, i posted the patch, asked why this was not
done, and *EXPLICITLY* asked this to be double checked, did i not ?
What i highly dislike about you, is your way to say : this is too risky, and
won't be considered, instead of saying "let's take the time to invesitgate the
issue", or other more positive things. Don't you see how arrogant and
despreciative your first line of answer is ?
Don't you also see how you are backsliding into ad-hominem attacks in this
reply, and instead of working together to make debian the best technical
distribution, you take the oportunity to bash me
Reply to: