On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 09:30 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:10:42PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 16:18 +0300, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > Hi Ben,
> > >
> > > Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> (2011-05-16):
> > > > On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 17:17 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > Package: base-installer
> > > > > Severity: normal
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that the various bootloaders have hooks to handle kernel
> > > > > installation, or otherwise automatically handle all kernels via their
> > > > > actual paths, do_symlinks doesn't seem necessary anymore. Please
> > > > > consider defaulting it to "no".
> > > >
> > > > Josh, this is simply not true. Only grub and syslinux create menus of
> > > > all installed kernels. I hope to get this changed for wheezy, but can't
> > > > promise it.
> > >
> > > can you please send us an update to see how we stand WRT this bug report?
> >
> > I haven't done anything about this and don't expect to do so any time
> > soon.
> >
> > I think the GRUB maintainers are hoping to be able to support ~all our
> > Linux architectures, so we may at some point be able to stop supporting
> > direct loading of the kernel by the stupider boot-loaders. We're not
> > there yet, though.
>
> Do the different architectures use different pre-seeds, or different
> base-installer configurations? Might it be possible to keep
> do_symlinks=yes on architectures where the bootloader requires the
> symlinks, while eliminating it on the architectures that no longer need
> that?
It might but I hardly think it's worth the effort. For example lilo
still exists so we can't get rid of them on x86 yet.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
- Albert Einstein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part