Hi Cyril,
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 11:28:23PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > does that also mean that haveged get's installed on the final system if
> > it's deemed to be useful in d-i or is that still missing?
> There's nothing in what I have written (on this bug report or in the
> code I've quoted or pointed to) that references /target, no.
this was my understanding as well, though I wasn't sure (havent reviewed
the code), thats why I asked, so thanks for pointing this out! (and for
the other feedback as well!)
> TBF I have no idea whether we should do that; the situation is slightly
> different as a non-installer/non-live system can carry over entropy from
> one boot to the next one, which d-i can't do.
right.
> I've focussed on getting entropy issues within d-i fixed, which seemed
> urgently needed. I'm fine with people seeking a consensus through
> debian-boot@ (and maybe debian-devel@) regarding what should happen in
> the installed system.
ok, cool.
though I don't think I have time/energy to drive this discussion right
now :/
> (I almost mentioned the fix would be trivial as it's about pulling an
> extra package, but since we have no rng support in udebs at the moment,
> we would have no rng support in d-i thus haveged running, while the
> installed system could have rng support… Anyway: deciding what to do is
> the important part; implementation should be much more straightforward
> than the haveged udeb addition dance I've just orchestrated.)
heh. what was the reason haveged was choosen and not jitterentropy-rngd
which was also suggested here?
--
tschau,
Holger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature