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

Bug#1036779: finish-install: factorize update-initramfs calls

This isn't going to be fully addressed for Bookworm, or even at all.

Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (2023-05-26):
> At the moment, and only looking at our packages, there are several
> finish-install hooks that might trigger an update-initramfs call:
>  - hw-detect might deploy a CPU microcode package;

There's actually an explicit u-i call here, but only to adjust a
modprobe blacklist, in some Oracle-related code path.

The u-i call via microcode installation, directly from their postinst
script, so we couldn't really skip them, unless we were to cheat and
temporarily make /usr/sbin/update-initramfs -x (which seems fragile).

So this part wouldn't benefit directly from this factorization.

> Additionally, due to #1036019, one might get a garbled LUKS prompt, and
> I'm considering adding some kind of detection. This would likely be
> along the way of “if bochs or cirrus are loaded, add them to i-t's
> modules and rebuild the initramfs”, making sure the LUKS prompt would be
> readable, and increasing chances of seeing error messages if the boot
> breaks early. First instinct was hw-detect's finish-install script, but
> thinking a bit more and filing the actual report still remain to be
> done.

This is https://bugs.debian.org/1036780 now. It really feels like
hw-detect is a better place than finish-install itself… but maybe I'll
paper over it via a single finish-install tweak for now, and revisit the
whole thing once we implement factorization.

> (Of course, this doesn't change the fact there might be multiple runs
> earlier; I'm only looking at the “final” run, within finish-install's
> realm.)

And as mentioned above, this is also the case when installing
*-microcode packages… :/

Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: