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

Re: New partman-multipath udeb

On Tuesday 26 February 2008, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > I saw that Otavio committed the multipath udeb. The indentation in
> > various scripts is a complete mess.
> The indentation used spaces instead of tabs in several spaces, I cleaned
> that up.

The finish-install script still has space indentation though and a few files 
also end with a redundant newline (admitted a very minor issue, but still).

> > Also, it looks like the finish-install script should be a
> > base-installer script (and should include what's in the finish.d
> > script) as that would remove the need to run update-initramfs again.
> Could you point me to a package that does it like this?

Well, you basically just have to look at what needs to happen when and work 
to implement that. The goal should be to avoid double work (i.e. avoid 
running update-initramfs twice, especially as that's a slow process).

I was wrong though that a /usr/lib/base-installer.d/ hookscript would work: 
that is run before debootstrap, so you cannot really do anything there yet.

However, /usr/lib/post-base-installer.d/ is perfect as that is run after 
debootstrap but before kernel installation. It works the same as 
finish-install.d: just dump a script in there and it'll get executed.
Because of when it is executed, you can do everything in the same script: 
run apt-install and copy the config and bindings. And everything will 
already be in place when the kernel is installed and the initramfs is 

There are several hook scripts in there, but no real example of a package 
that does something like you want.

> > I'm fairly disappointed that this was just committed without a proper
> > review.
> That certainly wasn't intended. Since this happened in separate package
> there's hopefuly not too much harm done.

No, no harm done. And it was not really a criticism of you. IMO the absolute 
minimal review before commit should at least be for coding style issues.

I actually really appreciate the fact that you've opted to add the support 
in a non-invasive way (activation by a boot option). Hopefully we can 
activate it more structurally after we get some feedback from testing.


Reply to: