Your message dated Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:57:57 -0500
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Debconf questions
has caused the Debian Bug report #369941,
regarding linux-image-2.6.16-2-686: Debconf question should be reworded, or
upgrade mechanism made more clever
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
369941: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=369941
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: linux-image-2.6.16-2-686
Version: 2.6.16-13bpo1
Severity: important
I have linux-image-2.6-686 installed, so that I automatically get new
versions of 2.6.16 (in fact this is a sarge system with backports from
backports.org, but that probably does not matter at all).
I'm also routinely running 2.6.16, and while upgrading from 2.6.16-1-686
to 2.6.16-2-686 I got a warning message that it would be very dangerous
to proceed, since the machine might become unbootable and all that.
I'm not sure which template that was; I can't find it in the plethora of
debconf questions below. I've found one that talked about "permission
to remove /lib/modules/...", but this one I did *not* see.
I think there are several things wrong with that.
First of all, I have a couple of other kernels installed and configured
in menu.list (lilo is not installed); isn't it possible to detect that
and make the message a little less alarming?
Second, I think a standard install of sarge, and probably etch as well,
will only have one kernel image installed. Doesn't this mean that each
time a kernel is upgraded (e.g. via security updates), users will get
that message? I think we should take great effort to avoid this, and
instead provide a clean upgrade procedure. For example by delaying
parts of the configuration to the next reboot.
Regards, Frank
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (99, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-686
Locale: lang=de...@euro, lc_ctype=de...@euro (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
Versions of packages linux-image-2.6.16-2-686 depends on:
ii module-init-tools 3.2.2-1bpo1 tools for managing Linux kernel mo
ii yaird [linux-initramfs-tool 0.0.12-8bpo1 Yet Another mkInitRD
-- debconf information:
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/old-system-map-link-2.6.16-2-686: true
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/failed-to-move-modules-2.6.16-2-686:
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/overwriting-modules-2.6.16-2-686: true
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/create-kimage-link-2.6.16-2-686: true
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/prerm/removing-running-kernel-2.6.16-2-686: true
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/depmod-error-2.6.16-2-686: false
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/abort-install-2.6.16-2-686:
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/bootloader-error-2.6.16-2-686:
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/kimage-is-a-directory:
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/abort-overwrite-2.6.16-2-686:
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/prerm/would-invalidate-boot-loader-2.6.16-2-686: true
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/already-running-this-2.6.16-2-686:
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/elilo-initrd-2.6.16-2-686: true
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/initrd-2.6.16-2-686:
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/old-initrd-link-2.6.16-2-686: true
* linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/lilo-initrd-2.6.16-2-686: false
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/lilo-has-ramdisk:
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/preinst/bootloader-initrd-2.6.16-2-686: true
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/old-dir-initrd-link-2.6.16-2-686: true
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/depmod-error-initrd-2.6.16-2-686: false
linux-image-2.6.16-2-686/postinst/bootloader-test-error-2.6.16-2-686:
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
Arguably, this is not a bug for a generic tool like
kernel-package, which is designed to create kernel images for all kinds
of constituencies.
Secondly, none of the bootloader questions are now asked, though
the messages are not been toned down. And, unlike official kernel
images, of which there are few, kernel-package can be used to generate
several kernel images; I once had 24 images for 2.6.27 while I was
testing things.
Thirdly, the kernel team changes the name of the kernel images
when an ABI change happens, this is unlikely to be true for
images in general, so the messages should remain dire
Given that, it is not unusual to make the user confirm that
overriding the modules is OK.
manoj
--
Finster's Law: A closed mouth gathers no feet.
Manoj Srivastava <[email protected]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--- End Message ---
