Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:46:32PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:16:12AM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > No, in the general case the system will do that once it fails to find a >> >> > bootable OS on the drive. >> >> >> >> In the general case there will be a bootable OS on the drive. >> > >> > That's in no way a given. >> >> You have it backwards. The conclusion here is that having a case where >> a non-interactive install is possible is not a given. > > I deal with customers who perform non-interactive installs. The fact > that you don't care about that use case is entirely irrelevant to me, > because you're not the person that I am obliged to satisfy. I have spent what feels like half my life doing automatic installs. I care a lot and I understand the requirements. I also see through misstatements about reality used to justify stupid design decisions. For automated installs you don't have to satisfy me. Feel free to deliver a lousy solution to your users. Just don't use your arbitrary design decisions to justify your kernel patches. Non-interactive installs do not justify removing all trust from the root user of a system, disabling suspend to disk and completely rewriting kexec for the simple expedient removing a couple of lines of code from your bootloader. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
