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

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On 05/26/2010 03:36 AM, Stephen Powell wrote:
> That works for now; but if a package upgrade for extlinux is ever
> downloaded, I'm afraid that new versions of the hook scripts will
> be copied into these directories which are marked executable, and
> my hand-made configuration file will get wiped out.  I would suggest
> testing the existence of some flag file.  If the flag file exists,
> then invoking update-extlinux should be bypassed.  Thus, if the user
> doesn't want his hand-made /boot/extlinux/extlinux.conf file to be
> tampered with, he can create that flag file via "touch" and the hook
> script will not run update-extlinux.  Strictly speaking, this is
> an enhancement request.

as of current git, you can now use EXTLINUX_UPDATE=false in
/etc/default/extlinux to prevent having update-extlinux do anything.

> Second, it is important that any script run as a hook script not
> produce any output at all to standard output.  I found that out the
> hard way when I was writing my own hook scripts for use with lilo.
> That's because they run under debconf, which has redirected standard
> output for its own purposes.  Thus, anything written to standard
> output is (1) never seen by the user and (2) has a good chance of
> messing up debconf, which is examining the output.  The invocation
> of update-extlinux should have a redirection on it to redirect
> output to standard error.  For example,
>    update-extlinux >&2

none of the hooks is doing this (initramfs-tools, grub, etc), might
needs further convincing.

Address:        Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email:          daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet:       http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

Reply to: