On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:48:54 +0200 maximilian attems <max@stro.at> wrote: > tags 425050 wontfix > stop > > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 07:32:45PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra (tdykstra) wrote: > > > > I created a patch to ask a debconf question (medium priority) if > > update-initramfs should update all initramfs or not. The idea is that > > other packages (like my uswsusp package) should check this question too. > > > > This way we can make both the people that want to keep old initramfses > > around and the people that want an up-to-date initramfs for several > > versions happy at the same time. > > > > grts Tim > > big no: > useless debconf proliferation is bad. Come on. `useless debconf proliferation'? The question has medium priority. I can also make it an configration option somewhere and use that, but it was just a convenient why to get info from a user. > second if you want to update all initramfs it is easy to do so. No, it is not. Well not in an automated way consistent over all packages that use it. Maybe you haven't noticed, but this has come up several times in several bug reports already. Now we have a situation where from several packages, some only update the initramfs only for the current one, others for all. This is IMHO bad. I presume (reading other bug reports against u-i) that there was a good reason not to update them for all. Well know you don't get that behavior. > third this does not belong to initramfs-tools at all. Of course it is if we want it to be consistent over several packages. grts Tim
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature