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

Bug#362064: udev: udev tries to write to an installed, working initrd without asking

Le vendredi 14 avril 2006 à 21:24 +0200, maximilian attems a écrit :
> Having evms call update-initramfs at install time is completely gratuitous,
> because the system *won't* be set up for evms at the time of the evms
> postinst: either the update-initramfs will be a complete no-op and have to
> be repeated later once evms is set up, or it won't be a no-op -- meaning it
> will likely have done something undesirable, unrelated to evms.

update-initramfs isn't a noop,
it happily include all the needed evms root support,
as evms added its hooks and calls update-initramfs.
Specifically, if you forget to do some piece of configuration, you now have enough piece in the initramfs to recover your system.

This is by design.
> So I don't see any real benefit to having all of these tools rebuilding the
> initramfs repeatedly during an upgrade cycle.  Theoretically it would be
> nice to know as soon as a package is installed that it will break the
> initramfs, but using update-initramfs doesn't do this: the only way to be
> sure whether a new initramfs is broken is to try to boot from it.  Since we
> can't force reboots during an upgrade (especially not once for each hook!),
> there is no significant increase in predictability by using this method, and
> users are better off if the upgrade doesn't touch the existing, working
> initramfs images at all.

I'm only reading this thread intermittantly, sorry for the lag.  The bug here is generally that dpkg doesn't have a "do this last and once" hook.  I agree that it would be nice if it didn't burn time on each step of the way.

Having a backup file might make sense.  Then again, if you've just installed something to get support, why should this support *not* be available everywhere?  Requiring the user to do a step that a computer ought to have done doesn't make sense.

Jeff Bailey

Although when you're in the situation that RMS is telling you that
you're being too ideological about freedom, maybe, just maybe, it's
- Matthew Wilcox

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: