On 10:58 Fri 15 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:14 PM Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: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
For that, my last patch stand , I have covered it in a sane way, please try that once more with options.Yes , you said, the modules directory should be pruned at once with kernel. But , every system keeps the modules directory in different names AFAIK. So, the explicitness of the calling.
[2] do nice things for non-rpm systems
Bruce's code cover the base for RPM based system , which can be applied to other similar distribution using that format.Provided I figure out the "unknown binary" in the code. I might add other packaging format distribution to cover. Those will append behind the existing code.
They should be done by separate patches.
Agreed. Moduler and clear.
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 differently.
For [2], I am not sure how well it goes until I see an actual patch.
That would be a undertaking to deal with the native packaging system for different distributions.
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Thanks, Bhaskar
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
