Bug#789798: [RFR] New grub-installer-template
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 10:28 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Ian Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Hello l10n-english,
> > In http://bugs.debian.org/789798 I've proposed a new debconf question
> > for grub-installer (part of d-i which handles installing grub on those
> > platforms which use it as a bootloader). The question is low priority
> > and I would normally expect it to be used via preseeding, nonetheless
> > some review of the wording would be appreciated. I've already applied
> > the tweak suggested by Steve in the bug to the text below.
> > Here it is:
> > Template: grub-installer/no-nvram
> > Type: boolean
> > Default: false
> > # :sl4:
> > _Description: Avoid adding GRUB to Firmmware NVRAM configuration?
> > By default GRUB will be registered into NVRAM on platforms where this is
> > required. e.g. UEFI Boot Manager or OpenFirmware boot device.
> > .
> > This is sometimes not desirable, e.g. for systems which PXE boot and chainload
> > instead and do not want the firmware configuration adjusted. Answering no here
> > will avoid making such adjustments.
> There seems to be a double negative here.
> The parameter is 'no-nvram' so I'd expect 'True' to indicate that one
> should avoid touching the NVRAM, whereas the text says:
> Answering _no_ here will avoid making such adjustments.
> I think that "no" should be "yes".
Indeed, checking the code:
+ # Should we avoid installing/registering GRUB in NVRAM?
+ db_input low grub-installer/no-nvram || [ $? -eq 30 ]
+ db_go || exit 10
+ db_get grub-installer/no-nvram
+ if [ "$RET" = true ]; then
+ grub_install_params="$grub_install_params --no-nvram"
+ # Make sure this happens on upgrades too
+ $chroot $ROOT 'debconf-set-selections' <<EOF
+grub-installer/no-nvram boolean true
I did seem to mean "yes".
> Also, the "and do not want the firmware configuration adjusted." seems a
> bit redundant, given the preceding "not desirable". How about:
> Ocasionally this is not desired (e.g. on systems that PXE boot and then
> chainload). Answering "yes" here will leave NVRAM untouched.
> BTW Is "yes" actually the right thing to say here? Or should one say
> "setting the option" or some such, so it works with GUIs that present
> this as a tick-box, say.
I'll assume this is a question to the list since I have no idea... (it
does sound sensible though).
> I'd also make the "device" at the end of the first paragraph be
> "devices" instead.
Thanks for the review!