On 15.07.2012 17:37, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jul 15, Bastian Blank <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Can you provide the number of the bugreport requesting removal of the >> udeb? However, why is there a udeb called libkmod2-udeb then? > It was discussed on IRC, I think with the busybox maintainer.
Well, if think it really was me (unless you mean some other discussion which I don't know about), and yes we ta I told you about busybox and modprobe (and other utils from m-i-t or kmod family). It was after you told me that m-i-t is going to be replaced with kmod. There are two "discussions", or talks, were happining almost at once. One was about d-i, -- I notified #d-boot that busybox is now able to replace m-i-t.udeb as it has the same functionality (this is when you said that m-i-t is going to be replaced), and suggested not to enable this functionality in busybox (but it has been enabled already). And another - I told you that in INITRAMFS, ie, in regular busybox, modprobe from busybox is used, not from m-i-t or kmod package. This is because busybox includes modprobe&Co in its regular build too (due to too high demand), and becase this build is built with FEATURE_PREFER_APPLETS enabled, which means that when busybox wants to exec something, it searches its applet of the same name first, and goes to $PATH next (why this option is enabled is another question/topic). In both cases, no one actually _disabled_ usage of kmod or m-i-t: in particular, in d-i, m-i-t is still used, and in initramfs case, the binaries will be put into initramfs even it they wont be used. I can only guess there was some misunderstanding between us happened. Or maybe I wasn't clear, or even wrong - sometimes I think "d-i" but say "initramfs" (as both environments are sort of "minimal," "pre-boot" (or even pre-install) and thus very different from regular installed system). I can try to find this discussion in my irclogs, to see whenever I really said about d-i or initramfs (to mean initramfs ofcourse). Unfortunately, whomever was not writing or reading wrongly does not fix the breakage now... :( Note: in order to enable busybox modprobe&Co in d-i, the ONLY thing needed is to _remove_ any alternatives (m-i-t or kmod), because when d-i is built, it runs a script which adds symlinks to busybox for all applets which are implemented in current build of busybox, AND which doesn't exist. So, IF no modprobe, insmod, rmmod, or lsmod is found, it will be created as a symlink to busybox. So it was only the build dependency which broke (which is what this thread is about). Whenever it is a good idea to use busybox modprobe or not is, again, a different question. Since it is already used in initramfs and apparently will be used in wheezy, I think it should be safe to use it in d-i too. But having in mind beta1 of d-i should come out, any change there is, well, unwelcome. >>> module-init-tools is not coming back, if d-i still needs something from >>> kmod then just let me know without getting crazy for no reason. >> http://hermes.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~blank/debian/kmod.diff > This is interesting, because the last time I tried statically linking > the udeb it was bigger than the dynamic one. > -Os is supposed to be used, but now I see that it somehow broke. > > I can upload a new package later today, but I want to be really sure > that there is a consensus to rename the udeb right now. Thanks, /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
