On Thu, 2020-01-30 at 20:10 +0300, Alper Nebi Yasak wrote: > On 30/01/2020 16:43, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Oh, right, then I misunderstood what you were doing. I don't > > understand how the two templates work together, so it may well be that > > the first version was OK. > I don't really grok debconf, but from what I can tell: > 1. at build-time, x may be set differently per-arch > 2. either x or y may be preseeded with a value by the user > 3. if y is empty, it's set to the value of x at install-time > 4. installer asks about y (based on priority) > 5. value of y is used to configure initramfs-tools > where: > x is base-installer/kernel/linux/initramfs-tools/* (string) > y is base-installer/initramfs-tools/* (select) > > If either is set to a wrong value, y is somehow reset to it's first > choice. I searched a bit and came across bug #192889 which says it's the > frontend that does sanitization, so step 4. > > The first version is probably good enough, except in contrived > situations designed to break it. Right, thanks for the explanation and sorry for wasting your time with my initial objection. > (You didn't reply to the bts, so I'm not doing either. Just pointing it > out in case it was by accident. If you resend to bts, feel free to > forward this mail as well.) That was accidental, so I've now bounced both messages. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part