Re: Bug#523735: /etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs-tools: please consider supporting the experimental kernel-package out of the box
On Wed, Sep 30 2009, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
>> support added, please verify in latest initramfs git, see
>> http://git.debian.org/?p=kernel/initramfs-tools.git
>
> I'm not completely sure how the patch works. From how I read it, there are
> three changes:
> 1) When ran by kernel-package, and a second argument is passed, use
> that as the boot dir passed with -b to update-initramfs. This
> seems like a good idea, but seems unrelated to the main change.
This is indeed very nice.
> 2) When $DEB_MAINT_PARAMS is set, only run if it starts with
> "configure". I'm completely unaware of where this variable comes
> from and who sets it, but this also seems unrelated (unless the
> official kernel images and newer kernel-package versions set this,
> while older versions do not?).
This is from a proposal initially by Frans Pop, and allows
passing through of the maintainer script parameters to the scripts
being run. This way, we only build he initramfs when initially
configured. This is a good thing.
> 3) The "If I'm called by kernel-package, don't run" check has been
> completely removed. This is the main change in the commit, but I
> think it is a bit stronger than we had discussed (See below).
I am not sure I agree. I think this is great -- this adds
support for the new kernel-package created kernel images, and has no
change for kernel images created by older (11.XX) kernel-package
images, which did their own initramfs things.
> However, I've nearly convinced myself that removing the check and
> always running update-initramfs-tools might be the better approach,
> since it makes all kernels work out of the box (generating the
> initramfs twice for < 12.001, but that's more acceptable than not
> generating any for >= 12.001 < 12.018 I think?).
I am not sure. The 11.XX versions of kernel-package are present
in a release, while the >= 12.001 < 12.018 have been only in short
term development branches.
> So, perhaps we should remove one more check? Manoj?
I think I would agree with maks here, and let the current code
go forward as is. Thiswoud certainly give us consistency for Squeeze,
and continue to work as it always did for Lenny backports, and the
ongoing support for >= 12.001 < 12.018 generated images is not
important enough to spend more time on this.
manoj
--
Keep America beautiful. Swallow your beer cans.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: