On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 07:47:21PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I'm not talking about installing multiple kernels. I'm talking about
setting the wanted configuration for how multiple kernels should be
handled on the installed system after the installation. And that
setting would be
also sprach Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.19.1832 +0200]:
Come on. `useless debconf proliferation'? The question has medium
priority. I can also make it an configration option somewhere and use
that, but it was just a convenient why to get info from a user.
I'd also say a
[Gabor Gombas]
I'd also say a debconf question is overkill. People who understand what
the option means can edit a config file by hand.
Remember that using debconf allow the setting to be preseeded during
installation. Editing a config file by hand is less convenient for
preconfigured
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:08:02AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Anyway, I propose that update-initramfs just loses the -k switch or
provides a new wrapper that packages like cryptsetup and mdadm just
call without worrying whether it will update all initrds or just the
current one.
I
On 20-May-07, 04:08 (CDT), martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also sprach Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.19.1832 +0200]:
Come on. `useless debconf proliferation'? The question has medium
priority. I can also make it an configration option somewhere and use
that, but it
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 01:59:20PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Remember that using debconf allow the setting to be preseeded during
installation. Editing a config file by hand is less convenient for
preconfigured installations.
But why would you want to install _multiple_ kernels in a
Please cc: the bug report
On Sun, 20 May 2007 16:35:27 +0200
David Härdeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:08:02AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
They can set their debconf priority. It's not something to avoid,
adding debconf questions
Anyway, I propose that
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 04:35:27PM +0200, David Härdeman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:08:02AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Anyway, I propose that update-initramfs just loses the -k switch or
provides a new wrapper that packages like cryptsetup and mdadm just
call
also sprach Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.20.2102 +0200]:
That sounds to me like addressing the wrong problem. Maybe what should
be done is that update-initramfs updates *all* the images, whatever
happens, but a copy of the kernel and initramfs images used to boot the
system as it is
On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 23:06 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.05.20.2102 +0200]:
That sounds to me like addressing the wrong problem. Maybe what should
be done is that update-initramfs updates *all* the images, whatever
happens, but a copy of the
10 matches
Mail list logo