Re: LILO

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

Je 12 May 2001 16:18:40 -0500,
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> scribis:
> >>"Itai" == Itai Zukerman <zukerman@math-hat.com> writes:
> 
>  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. 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I didn't.  You're conveniently omitting:

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

> 	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.

I thought alternatives were created for exactly this purpose: Having a
number of prioritized alternatives (different priorities for different
arches).  But, maybe this is abusing the alternatives mechanism.  If
so, I apologize for having propogated this thread.

>  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. 

Well, that's a matter of opinion.  I'd rather call update-alternatives
in a postinst than parse a configuration file from another package
whose syntax might change.

> 	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.

I'm very happy with kernel-img.conf and the flexibility it gives
(specifically arbitrary postinst hooks, but the other stuff is nice,
too).  What I'm suggesting is that boot loaders provide a common
update-boot-loader interface, and that the kernel-image *default* to
calling that.  I agree wholeheartedly that the current flexibility
should be retained, but I don't see why boot loader-specific code
needs to be part of kernel-package.

Practically speaking, new boot loaders aren't popping up every day, but
a kernel-image that's not boot loader specific just seems more correct
to me.

>  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.

Sorry, just getting a little worked up.

-itai