Re: LILO

[Itai Zukerman <zukerman@math-hat.com>]

Je 10 May 2001 16:02:36 -0500,
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> scribis:
> >>"Itai" == Itai Zukerman <zukerman@math-hat.com> writes:
> 
>  Itai> And, this is better than having lilo and grub implement an
>  Itai> update-boot-loader script and testing *just* for the existance of that
>  Itai> in the kernel-image postinst and postrm?
> 
> 	And what would this script do, since it can't really edit the
>  conffile? And you can choose to tell the kernel image not to put the
>  symlinks in /; or not to do the symlinks at all; or not to run a boot
>  loader, or to run an arbitrary script you specify.

1.  What conffile?  For grub, it *maybe* edits menu.lst and does
    nothing else.  For lilo it does exactly what kernel-package does
    now.

2.  Did you choose to ignore my suggestion to give update-boot-loader
    some parameters to specify where the new kernel was put?

> 	Given that we have all that already in place, why do we need
>  yet another standards api that has to be implemented by all
>  bootloaders of all architectures and hard coded in the postinst?

Your way: Put scripts to update all the boot loaders after a kernel
install on all architectures into kernel-package.  Make them
centralized.

My way:  Distribute the scripts among the boot-loader packages.

It's still pretty clear to me.

-itai