On 10/31/19 3:46 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: > Hi Eli, > > This is totally uncalled for. Even though I agree that kernel-install is > *not* > that great, there's no need to be aggressive. > > The question, even if phrased not in the best way, is a legitimate one. Didn't seem like much of a question to me. As far as I'm aware, there is no actual blocker to it, we even package it as one of the collection of tools made available by systemd so you literally cannot avoid having it available as it's a mandatory part of base. (The kernel is not mandatory, and mkinitcpio is not mandatory, but kernel-install is mandatory.) To aid such people, both mkinitcpio and dracut install relevant files to /usr/lib/kernel/install.d/ ... If people think kernel-install is an interesting technology which they would like to try out, that is fine. If people think kernel-install is literally the best ever and they must use it, that's fine too. I personally don't feel that way, and would rather have the option to skip the use of kernel-install, and that is fine too. I'm a bit skeptical, though, of posts which feature, essentially, "I notice Arch Linux does not bless kernel-install as the official kernel method of Arch Linux and request that you justify your decision to not use documented standards[0] and instead use your exclusivist Arch Linux hooks which merit multiple exclamation marks worth of surprise, because gosh is this surprisingly surprising". So I *inverted the question*. (I acknowledge I may have gotten a bit exaggerated in the process... I apologize. OTOH, I didn't quite intend my statements about kernel-install 100% seriously.) -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User [0] Putting something in a manpage doesn't necessarily make it a standard, even if you find it really useful and enjoyable to use.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
