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

Re: Bug#505609: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:33:58PM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
> I can maybe accept your proposal for Squeeze.  But for Lenny, I believe
> that the maintainer scripts should be changed back they way they
> were.  In other words,
>    my $loader            = "lilo"; # lilo, silo, quik, palo, vmelilo, nettrom, arcboot, or delo
> should be set in the maintainer scripts.  After all, Lenny does
> not have the generalized hook script environment that Squeeze does.

But it does allow users to configure the loader to be run, using either
the 'loader' or 'postinst_hook' variable.

> I believe that this bug is severe enough to warrant inclusion of the
> fix in stable-proposed-updates.

The fact that the historical bootloader is not automatically run is not a
bug; it is an intentional change.  Only the silent failure is a bug.

> > 
> > All packages that need to react to kernel installation or removal should
> > install appropriate hook scripts in the directories under /etc/kernel
> > instead of relying on specific support in the kernel maintainer scripts.
> >
> Again, I can maybe accept that argument for Squeeze, but not for Lenny.
> However, to be consistent, if you're going to leave "my $loader" set to the null
> string in i386 and amd64 kernel maintainer scripts, you should also set
> it to the null string for s390 kernel maintainer scripts.

Yes. I think that's probably a reasonable change for squeeze.

> The maintainer scripts' support for the historic boot
> loader should be retained, in my opinion, at least for Squeeze.  Then,
> if you want to change the design of how kernel maintainer scripts
> work, that can be done in Squeeze+1.
It cannot be 'retained' because it is not there at present.  Nor will it
be reinstated.


Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
                                                              - Albert Camus

Reply to: