Re: [DRAFT v2] Policy for Linux kernel, initramfs, boot loader update process

[Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@wowway.com>]

On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:38:53 -0400 (EDT), Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:18 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
>> ...
>> Perhaps more importantly, why do these architectures use the vmlinux
>> naming convention
> 
> Hysterical raisins.

I take that to mean "historical reasons".  OK.
>>
>> and why is it important to maintain a separate
>> naming convention?  Wouldn't it be simpler to use the same naming
>> convention on all architectures?
>> ...
> 
> That would require an upstream change.

Oh.
>> ...
>> So far, I have had no requirement to interact directly with debconf
>> in a hook script, but why close out our options?
> 
> So that hook script authors can't make the mistake of failing to
> redirect.

Well, yes, it would solve that problem.  But if redirection is
listed in the policy, and they don't do it, it's their fault.
My stuff works either way, at this point.  Do what you think is best.

>> ...
>> Upon further reflection, however, maybe I should expand this test to look
>> for Hurd kernels and FreeBSD kernels?
> 
> It's possible that this policy can be extended to cover them, but I just
> don't know anything about their boot process.

Then I'll leave it as-is for now.

-- 
  .''`.     Stephen Powell    
 : :'  :
 `. `'`
   `-