On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 09:35 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 05:44:32AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 16:55 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > Actually, what I want is a consistent way to disable bootloader > > > invocation for all bootloaders, without necessarily requiring the > > > bootloader package not to be installed (since that's sometimes extremely > > > awkward to arrange). Exactly where this goes I can't say I mind. If > > > the result is an extension to the bootloader/kernel policy that needs to > > > be implemented in each bootloader package, that would be fine too. > > [...] > > > > OK, so something like this: > > > > "Boot loader packages must be installable on the filesystem in a > > disabled state where they will not write to the boot sector or other > > non-filesystem storage. While a boot loader is disabled, any kernel and > > initramfs hooks it includes must do nothing except (optionally) printing > > a warning that the boot loader is disabled, and must exit successfully." > > This is a good start, but it doesn't specify *how* boot loader packages > are to be disabled. I think that this needs to be consistent across > boot loaders. That would be good, but it is already a problem you have to deal with in creating a live distribution (e.g. you don't want an invocation of 'lilo' without arguments to install on some random disk chosen at build time). I believe it is out of scope for this policy. For what it's worth, I think the basic answer is 'don't create a configuration file'. However, elilo will do that on installation by default, so you need to set debconf variable elilo/runme to false. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part