On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 12:21 AM Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote: > > 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. As I said before, your patch is replacing everything, and breaking how it previously worked. If you want to support the interactive mode, what you need to do is quite simple - 1) check the command line option -i 2) if -i is given, show a prompt before the removal It would be possible to do these in smaller changes. I attached a sample patch. > That would be a undertaking to deal with the native packaging system for > different distributions. > > >-- > >Best Regards > >Masahiro Yamada > > Thanks, > Bhaskar -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada