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

Re: Bug#789798: [RFR] New grub-installer-template

On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 10:28 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Ian Campbell <ijc@debian.org> writes:
> > Hello l10n-english,
> >
> > In http://bugs.debian.org/789798 I've proposed a new debconf question
> > for grub-installer (part of d-i which handles installing grub on those
> > platforms which use it as a bootloader). The question is low priority
> > and I would normally expect it to be used via preseeding, nonetheless
> > some review of the wording would be appreciated. I've already applied
> > the tweak suggested by Steve in the bug to the text below.
> >
> > Here it is:
> >
> > Template: grub-installer/no-nvram
> > Type: boolean
> > Default: false
> > # :sl4:
> > _Description: Avoid adding GRUB to Firmmware NVRAM configuration?
> >  By default GRUB will be registered into NVRAM on platforms where this is
> >  required. e.g. UEFI Boot Manager or OpenFirmware boot device.
> >  .
> >  This is sometimes not desirable, e.g. for systems which PXE boot and chainload
> >  instead and do not want the firmware configuration adjusted. Answering no here
> >  will avoid making such adjustments.
> There seems to be a double negative here.
> The parameter is 'no-nvram' so I'd expect 'True' to indicate that one
> should avoid touching the NVRAM, whereas the text says:
>   Answering _no_ here will avoid making such adjustments.
> I think that "no" should be "yes".

Indeed, checking the code:

+                # Should we avoid installing/registering GRUB in NVRAM?
+               db_input low grub-installer/no-nvram || [ $? -eq 30 ]
+               db_go || exit 10
+               db_get grub-installer/no-nvram
+               if [ "$RET" = true ]; then
+                       grub_install_params="$grub_install_params --no-nvram"
+                       # Make sure this happens on upgrades too
+                       $chroot $ROOT 'debconf-set-selections' <<EOF
+grub-installer/no-nvram boolean true
+               fi

I did seem to mean "yes".

> Also, the "and do not want the firmware configuration adjusted." seems a
> bit redundant, given the preceding "not desirable".  How about:
>   Ocasionally this is not desired (e.g. on systems that PXE boot and then
>   chainload).  Answering "yes" here will leave NVRAM untouched.

Sounds good.

> BTW Is "yes" actually the right thing to say here? Or should one say
> "setting the option" or some such, so it works with GUIs that present
> this as a tick-box, say.

I'll assume this is a question to the list since I have no idea... (it
does sound sensible though).

> I'd also make the "device" at the end of the first paragraph be
> "devices" instead.


Thanks for the review!


Reply to: