On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:14 PM Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:For that, my last patch stand , I have covered it in a sane way, please try that
On 16:25 Sat 09 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:39 AM Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 14:30 Wed 06 Nov 2019, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> >On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 10:12:26AM +0530, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
>> >> On 23:31 Tue 05 Nov 2019, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> >> >On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 11:53:28AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> >> >>BTW.
>> >> >>Bruce,
>> >> >>Does the current script expect RHEL or something?
>> >> >>I do not see 'new-kernel-pkg' on my Ubuntu machine.
>> >> >
>> >> >I test on Fedora. Looks like on recent Fedora that's only provided by
>> >> >an rpm "grubby-deprecated", which is an inauspicious name....
>> >> >
>> >> >I think maybe you're supposed to use "grubby" itself now. Do you have
>> >> >that?
>> >> >
>> >> >>It would still work with 'new-kernel-pkg: command not found'
>> >> >>warning.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>We could bypass it if we like.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>command -v new-kernel-pkg && new-kernel-pkg --remove $f
>> >> >
>> >> >Looks like it's what updates the grub configuration, which is probably a
>> >> >nice thing to do if you can.
>> >> >
>> >> >--b.
>> >>
>> >> Bruce,
>> >>
>> >> Two things,
>> >>
>> >> If the system doesn't run grub , how the fallback policy???
>> >>
>> >> This binary "new-kernel-pkg" also missing in other systems too...I can
>> >> confirm that... i.e gentoo,slackware,
>> >>
>> >> So , you are only targeting the rpm based system????
>> >
>> >It's just what I happen to use. If someone wants to make it work
>> >elsewhere that'd be great, as long as we don't break what already works.
>> >
>> >I think Debian uses grub2-mkconfig? Might be OK for Fedora too, I
>> >dunno.
>> >
>> >--b.
>>
>> Okay , thanks for the input. I was trying to write something in
>> generalize way , that is why my code spins off.And if you see the
>> subject line of my very first attempt to patch written was "removing
>> old kernels and modules dir in selective way"... that was it.
>>
>> Now, there are plenty of distros around, not only rpm based one(yes I do
>> agree that ,you wrote it while using and testing on it, but that is
>> limited in nature),the broader user base might be using something else.
>>
>> we simply can not restrict it to certain packaging version or several
>> packaging versions of selected distros. We are making and building this
>> (worth an effort) to make it as generalized as possible.
>>
>> Importantly I was only thinking of people who put the stuff in standard
>> places in the FSH and use it. I might be wrong.
>>
>> As I have said it before, I was no way trying to bypass your work ,but
>> it seems very limited in nature to adopted. So trying to widen the
>> spectrum.
>>
>> I am trying to incorporating both the pole, different kind user base in
>> mind, like you , who don't like to be prompted for this operation and
>> assuming things should go well, and you are right.
>>
>> On the other hand , I am kinda guy , sometime I need to know what is
>> going on, so the prompting.
>>
>> Well, I have never taken into account about modifying the bootloader
>> config by looking at your work. Had I been, I would have done it already
>> and it would be extremely trivial in nature.
>>
>> Now, Grub, no doubt it's fantastic piece of software, but complexity
>> is paramount with it. Don't you think so??? I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST
>> GRUB!
>>
>> I have personally stops using it for years and using something very
>> rudimentary and simple and useful. That is because I know what I am
>> doing and my system well.
>>
>> Caveat emptor: that was me, not every one else in the wild. Grub is used
>> by the most distro by default,everybody knows it,but certainly not the
>> norm.
>>
>> I would love to give it a stab again and if you better people feel it is
>> necessary, but I need some concrete understanding from you,Masahiro and
>> Randy(who is helping me actively).
>>
>> Say, You people might come up ,
>>
>> We need these :
>>
>> a)
>> b)
>> c)
>>
>> and we don't need these:
>>
>> a)
>> b)
>> c)
>>
>>
>> My two cents! kindly, flame me with your thoughts.
>
>
>Honestly, I did not even know this script
>before you submitted the patch.
>
:)
>I prune stale kernel/modules with my own script,
>and I guess people do similar to meet their demand.
>
I do the same.
>I am not sure how many people are using this.
Only people who look up in the kernel source scripts directory , nobody
else for sure.
>If somebody is passionate to improve this script
>in a simple way, that is fine, but
>I do not want to see messy code for covering various use-cases.
Agreed. That is why need guideline from you people(You, Randy and Bruce
needs to tell me clearly), like what I mentioned, we can do
these and we can not do these. I am asking because you people have had more
exposure ,so might come up with some valid points to build up.
>
We have two topics here.
[1] add the interactive option
[2] do nice things for non-rpm systemsBruce's code cover the base for RPM based system , which can be applied
Agreed. Moduler and clear.
They should be done by separate patches.
I think [1] is easy to do in a few liners.My last patch stand.AFAIK...let me know if you feel it should be done
That would be a undertaking to deal with the native packaging system for
For [2], I am not sure how well it goes
until I see an actual patch.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature