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


>>"Itai" == Itai Zukerman <zukerman@math-hat.com> writes:

 >> *Sigh* Those people have to do more anyway to change their
 >> setup; they have to set up the new boot loader for themselves, and
 >> editing kernel-img.conf can be an integral part of setting up the
 >> boot loader.

 Itai> You're saying it's better to:
 Itai> 1.  Install a new boot loader.
 Itai> 2.  Root around for files in /etc that need fixing.

	You conveniently forgot to quote:
 >> If you have noticed, /etc/kernel-img.conf is *NOT* a
 >> conffile precisely for this reason. 

	Do I really have to spell things out in words with few syllables?
 Why do you think I would mention a file is ot a conffile when talking
 of setting up other packages? 

	The question to ask is whether a bootloader should set itself
 as a default in the postinst, or provide a script to do so at the
 users convenience. If a boot loader sets itself as a default in the
 postinst, I think it would be a bug. Boot laoding may well be too
 crucial to allow for easy automation, and mistakes in setting up
 bootloaders are costly. 

	The way the system is set up at the moment, each arch has a
 default bootloader, and the default bootloader should try and set
 itself up if not previously set up. All other boot loaders should
 provide a script, but not set themselves up as default. The user can
 always use the kernel image hook to run any locally decided script.

	Another solution, given debconf, may be to set up a
 default-boot-loader var, which, if unset, triggers the boot loaders
 postinst to ask whether it should be the default, and, if so, call
 the configuration script. (One should arrange for the var to be unset
 when being removed as well).  This way, the first boot loader on the
 system sets itself up as a default, all subsequent ones just bypass
 it silently, perhaps providing a --force-reconfigure option.

	This gets rapidly complicated.

 Itai> Or, are you suggesting that it's OK for a bootloader's postinst to
 Itai> modify /etc/kernel-img.conf?

	Why not? It is a better idea than mucking around with
 update-alternatives, I think. 

	Quite frankly, I think the boot loader should leave well
 enough alone, apart from documenting what should be run from the
 kernel-image hook. The kerel image hook is a better idea, since it
 allows for arbitrary scripts to be run, not just debian package
 managed update-boot-loader scripts. The sysadmin can chain in any of
 a number of scripts to be run, perhaps calling in a run-parts script,
 as desired in the local environment. 

	centralizing the control into a boot-uploader script, managed
 by several different packages, looses out on flexibility.

 Itai> Or, are you suggesting that it's important that installing a new boot
 Itai> loader be inconvient and tedious?

	No, I try and refrain from making such moronic suggestions.
 Indeed, things like this are unlikely to occur to me in the first place.


        The final solution should be applicable in several scenarios:
 a) I may not want that boot laoder as a default yet. I've had grub on
    my system for a while, though I still use LILO
 b) I may not want each kernel image to automatically update my boot
 c) I may boot off a floppy or loadlin

 Talkers are no good doers. William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: