Re: lilo.conf
On Saturday 06 January 2001 15:12, Marc Wilson wrote:
> Why the hell are you doing anything at ALL? You're not the maintainer,
The previous maintainer of lilo invited me to take over.
> your preinst/postinst is screwed, you trash a working configuration with
> unwarranted assumptions on your own part and don't even save a backup of
> the original configuration. I had SIX working kernel images defined in my
/etc/lilo.conf.old has a backup.
> configuration, all in /boot. Now I have NONE, because you removed their
> configurations, and replaced them with configurations pointing to the root
> of the filesystem where, needless to say, there are no kernel images.
If you had symbolic links installed (as all kernel packages produced by the
kernel-package package will have) then it will work.
> You removed my PASSWORD definitions. So much for security, eh? You
> removed my 'lba32' setting. And you didn't even mention that you were
> going to do it before it happened. You, sir, are a menace.
Do you have any understanding of what the word "unstable" means?
If you install a package from unstable then you face a risk that it won't
work correctly. The proceedure that you should follow is to file a bug
report describing how it didn't work as you expected. If you are unable to
file bug reports and have a risk of things not working as designed then you
should stick to potato.
Also you have ignored my request for a copy of your lilo.conf.
NB I expect passwords to be removed before people upload their lilo.conf
files - I didn't mention this before because it's stating the obvious, but it
seems that some things which are obvious to the rest of us aren't obvious to
you.
> Your comments in postinst are insulting and intentionally inflammatory.
> I'd hope that you can at least make the claim that English isn't your first
> language, because if it is, you've really got problems.
Actually those parts weren't written by me, they were written by someone who
(from their email address) appears to be Hungarian. I have already started
correcting the writing.
> Whyinhell are you making NMU's on critical system files when you don't know
> what you're doing?
I had put pre-release versions online and informed everyone on debian-devel
of what I was doing. Anyone who was interested was free to test them and
comment. I also announced the pre-release versions on the ReiserFS list (the
new version solves the ReiserFS problems).
I knew that this had potential to cause trouble. This is why I requested
testers and input from debian-devel several times.
NB You don't have to be a Debian developer to subscribe to debian-devel. If
you run the unstable distribution then you should probably be subscribed.
Now if you have any positive suggestions then I would like to hear them.
Suggesting that we keep an old lilo that can't correctly handle software RAID
or ReiserFS isn't an option. Suggesting that I don't maintain lilo is not an
option because the only other person who has expressed interest is the person
who wrote the debconf text you greatly object to.
If you wish to become a Debian developer and want to take over lilo then this
could be an option. However I don't think it would be a good first package
so you would be better off maintaining something else first. Let me know if
you'd like to persue this option.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: