On 10:58 Fri 15 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:14 PM Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote: >> >> On 16:25 Sat 09 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> >On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:39 AM Bhaskar Chowdhury 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