Hi,

Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> (2024-06-03):

I've created a udeb that adds an expert menu item to allow choosing systemd-boot (in the NEW queue):

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/systemd-boot-installer

The `Architecture: all` in control vs the 64-bit EFI logic in the script
seems odd at first glance. Looking at other *-installer, they tend to
have a restricted arch list in most cases.

I have no strong feelings either way, just something that caught my eye
when I first looked into the repository.

A couple of PRs for minimal support:

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer-utils/-/merge_requests/12

OK, spotted the todo in the script when I spotted the upload; a
versioned dependency will do the trick once the d-i-utils part is reviewed/merged/uploaded.

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/merge_requests/17

TIL: builscript.

ACK on the .mrconfig part, but I think this misses an addition to packages/po/packages_list (to be confirmed with Holger Wansing). Might
be best to get rid of the fuzzy parts still mentioning nobootloader
beforehand though. Just something that needs taken care of at some
point.

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/46

It does not show up in non-expert mode, which is fine for now,
especially as secure boot signing is not yet available.

After it's been in the testing image like this for a while, and after
we have secure boot integration finished up, would it be ok to show a question in the non-expert install too? GRUB would still be the
default of course, the question would select it by default, and allow
to switch to sd-boot if chosen. Where would be the best place to add
this?

I have close to no knowledge about the details around menu items at the
moment. Looking at the good old GRUB vs. LILO duo, I see they had
different numbers (7400 for GRUB, 7500 for LILO), not sure whether we
should have the same numbers for grub-installer and for
systemd-boot-installer.

I'm also not sure whether we should offer a choice between those two
different booting methods in the course of a normal (non-expert)
install.


Finally, I'm Cc-ing GRUB people to let them know.


Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmZdIIsACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSCk+w/8CAC2acIelU2cldXpHSi7xLnplGSoUkpqSuIKYon/qmER0o6w9SwrccXK DDMJwfSEAPlP+WhB6w5LcPGbQ5MFIL3XqVKQHyp4JOFhUiFF3nIXp/5sblbXoyQJ XWR/HD3NTgMIbIBVa+oBaRCxnkWnTE6gyxchT340CBFYPquNGzkxyvRAANY2fCBD sUJ87PJuwDkAbzQ3wx43LD2D7KxO1jLpO0jp1+TdvT/EuTVqFjKEOUJoluiUmAtm 4OPh2Vwapc3Uvj8DWFgdGIQjZY/T+owaMQwpi6QSPgg2twBtrp09aOvLj2z0iR4i hTmMy+knexmFP7X6L2FLJHZqDO7pLKNhxBLvgI3Xg5QUDXkpJcuQdpgKt97GKJDN nrNkxswEyZNcnA8tePZyb81hqeHUhG7GIDOiquWvjVUlY+FKoQVqIQjk39am2ETY 0FerEaqi8GfzZwio4FiVOkVa9mx37RItgG5hIFR2leDeYqQ4g6uXS+vKh+ioXqEG d4eZM/O/Nh22pBfY6k9VsW4lzP2VLbKicPKE7fn4XIr93g7u/CeI4aoynP37jBqc ZYoRqLBy0Q26EuZq0qNDx87YI/apatN+0VMsn6jN7hidQBt3qNbnRjpmcxvFv/Ky o3hqXWa1DS4Bt+0JHWFuQCrmYtG73mhJbL9wwyVId9nAdUD22z8=
=M0e8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
*

Hi,

I've created a udeb that adds an expert menu item to allow choosing systemd-boot (in the NEW queue):

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/systemd-boot-installer

A couple of PRs for minimal support:

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer-utils/-/merge_requests/12
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/merge_requests/17 https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/46

It does not show up in non-expert mode, which is fine for now,
especially as secure boot signing is not yet available.

After it's been in the testing image like this for a while, and after
we have secure boot integration finished up, would it be ok to show a
question in the non-expert install too? GRUB would still be the default
of course, the question would select it by default, and allow to switch
to sd-boot if chosen. Where would be the best place to add this?

--
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEErCSqx93EIPGOymuRKGv37813JB4FAmZdGHcACgkQKGv37813 JB438hAAy+pZlSWIljS8eF1tpAW3ylE2jnw6IhV30JAsjn1mSMIUSIrNPfBZeDX+ u4g8GtjIwJp0+njRaZVf+MesOYyBTHNWISE1LoQem+lyuvttGUQuUIb40FosbmCC w0cClbqLxlaNMbYE1VqHN6yFSwefGIDxsYcHERcysuZzGIt4qb+EK4fZV6fuNOpk ZxjnnLkw/FePduzllpFcTKw6e8MZqkGBUMaxPqjqE9ctJx9QdCrigU894uaBCfhh E1X4dC6LAt354d6lLukXV3Adm2Kx9QmgZZ9iMRbvr2g1FkmGd0CmXfk+7JO8cJj3 fAXCTj2oR9DbR3qYKnc40s9nAu3RrrsT5M5tB998SpdYnG5UdspUUdpTsjv2EB5W WW511jFR/38CwKDX80XdR5Rr8bGTk71MeytpY4gIyJVisGqTQou4g786opL5U6bW tCuvE1pLHvkyYNt/4UiaVlOSloavd9y3XCpYE8Q+eIO8VVXy44gv500UFJ1fAkx4 qn97zagYv/TAMVVYCqsRZa9je/lwGp85hKoPsvzW/fbAB++uMZRnxhwemHZbUuYH nMRcWU3kzTOyc1o2k4vZ0d7OpfMBwHrcQeY8Hn05WnY6dzeEvMj7V9IlqtFBZ0Nh zPCuc/hFtf36wyl3Q0+b+D5lwdO4wF9d1rHhsaFWTQSnHY3JoGo=
=eMe0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 02:47, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:

Hi,

Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> (2024-06-03):

I've created a udeb that adds an expert menu item to allow choosing systemd-boot (in the NEW queue):

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/systemd-boot-installer

The `Architecture: all` in control vs the 64-bit EFI logic in the script seems odd at first glance. Looking at other *-installer, they tend to
have a restricted arch list in most cases.

I have no strong feelings either way, just something that caught my eye
when I first looked into the repository.

Given it's only shipping a script I thought it was supposed to be
'all', and also it would avoid the need to conditionalize
dependencies. I can change it if needed, just let me know.

A couple of PRs for minimal support:

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer-utils/-/merge_requests/12

OK, spotted the todo in the script when I spotted the upload; a
versioned dependency will do the trick once the d-i-utils part is reviewed/merged/uploaded.

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/merge_requests/17

TIL: builscript.

ACK on the .mrconfig part, but I think this misses an addition to packages/po/packages_list (to be confirmed with Holger Wansing). Might
be best to get rid of the fuzzy parts still mentioning nobootloader beforehand though. Just something that needs taken care of at some
point.

Ah missed that packages_list - fixed in the latest push

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/46

It does not show up in non-expert mode, which is fine for now,
especially as secure boot signing is not yet available.

After it's been in the testing image like this for a while, and after
we have secure boot integration finished up, would it be ok to show a question in the non-expert install too? GRUB would still be the
default of course, the question would select it by default, and allow
to switch to sd-boot if chosen. Where would be the best place to add
this?

I have close to no knowledge about the details around menu items at the moment. Looking at the good old GRUB vs. LILO duo, I see they had
different numbers (7400 for GRUB, 7500 for LILO), not sure whether we
should have the same numbers for grub-installer and for systemd-boot-installer.

Yeah I just copied it without giving it much thought, if it needs to
be changed let me know what is the right number and I'll fix it.

I'm also not sure whether we should offer a choice between those two different booting methods in the course of a normal (non-expert)
install.

Finally, I'm Cc-ing GRUB people to let them know.

Sure we can leave it as-is until there's at least some request to have
it, expert mode is fine for now.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

Am 3. Juni 2024 11:23:57 MESZ schrieb Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>:

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 02:47, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:

Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> (2024-06-03):

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/merge_requests/17

TIL: builscript.

ACK on the .mrconfig part, but I think this misses an addition to
packages/po/packages_list (to be confirmed with Holger Wansing). Might
be best to get rid of the fuzzy parts still mentioning nobootloader
beforehand though. Just something that needs taken care of at some
point.

Ah missed that packages_list - fixed in the latest push

As kibi mentioned, the left-overs from nobootloader should be cleaned up in
the templates file, so
s/nobootloader/systemd-boot-installer/

and according to
<https://d-i.debian.org/doc/i18n-guide/ch01s04.html#sublevels>
I would prefer the new message to be sublevel 3, so
s/# :sl1:/# :sl3:/

before pushing this one.

Otherwise fine I think


Holger


--
Sent from /e/ OS on Fairphone3

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 16:11, Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org> wrote:

Hi,

Am 3. Juni 2024 11:23:57 MESZ schrieb Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>:

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 02:47, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:

Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> (2024-06-03):

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/merge_requests/17

TIL: builscript.

ACK on the .mrconfig part, but I think this misses an addition to
packages/po/packages_list (to be confirmed with Holger Wansing). Might
be best to get rid of the fuzzy parts still mentioning nobootloader
beforehand though. Just something that needs taken care of at some
point.

Ah missed that packages_list - fixed in the latest push

As kibi mentioned, the left-overs from nobootloader should be cleaned up in the templates file, so
s/nobootloader/systemd-boot-installer/

Whoops, forgot to fixup that file, thanks

and according to <https://d-i.debian.org/doc/i18n-guide/ch01s04.html#sublevels>
I would prefer the new message to be sublevel 3, so
s/# :sl1:/# :sl3:/

before pushing this one.

Otherwise fine I think

Sounds good, will push to main shortly and upload as soon as the
package has cleared NEW. Thanks for the reviews.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 20:07, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

Hello,

On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 03:46 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

ACK on the .mrconfig part, but I think this misses an addition to packages/po/packages_list (to be confirmed with Holger Wansing). Might
be best to get rid of the fuzzy parts still mentioning nobootloader beforehand though. Just something that needs taken care of at some
point.

Hmm? Did we get rid of supporting the installation of systems without
a bootloader? I found this very handy when installing on systems that
don't support standard bootloaders or when installing inside QEMU and
then booting kernel and initrd from the command line.

Is there anything broken in nobootloader?

No, they were referring to some copypasta in the new package - I
started by copying the nobootloader sources because I'm lazy AF, but
forgot to sed s/nobootloader/systemd-boot-installer/ one PO file.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hello,

On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 03:46 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

ACK on the .mrconfig part, but I think this misses an addition to packages/po/packages_list (to be confirmed with Holger Wansing). Might
be best to get rid of the fuzzy parts still mentioning nobootloader beforehand though. Just something that needs taken care of at some
point.

Hmm? Did we get rid of supporting the installation of systems without
a bootloader? I found this very handy when installing on systems that
don't support standard bootloaders or when installing inside QEMU and
then booting kernel and initrd from the command line.

Is there anything broken in nobootloader?

Adrian

--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 20:18 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:

Hmm? Did we get rid of supporting the installation of systems without
a bootloader? I found this very handy when installing on systems that
don't support standard bootloaders or when installing inside QEMU and
then booting kernel and initrd from the command line.

Is there anything broken in nobootloader?

No, they were referring to some copypasta in the new package - I
started by copying the nobootloader sources because I'm lazy AF, but
forgot to sed s/nobootloader/systemd-boot-installer/ one PO file.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

Adrian

--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 16:17, Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 16:11, Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org> wrote:

Hi,

Am 3. Juni 2024 11:23:57 MESZ schrieb Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>:

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 02:47, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:

Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> (2024-06-03):

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/merge_requests/17

TIL: builscript.

ACK on the .mrconfig part, but I think this misses an addition to
packages/po/packages_list (to be confirmed with Holger Wansing). Might >> be best to get rid of the fuzzy parts still mentioning nobootloader
beforehand though. Just something that needs taken care of at some
point.

Ah missed that packages_list - fixed in the latest push

As kibi mentioned, the left-overs from nobootloader should be cleaned up in the templates file, so
s/nobootloader/systemd-boot-installer/

Whoops, forgot to fixup that file, thanks

and according to <https://d-i.debian.org/doc/i18n-guide/ch01s04.html#sublevels>
I would prefer the new message to be sublevel 3, so
s/# :sl1:/# :sl3:/

before pushing this one.

Otherwise fine I think

Sounds good, will push to main shortly and upload as soon as the
package has cleared NEW. Thanks for the reviews.

The new source package has been accepted by the FTP team (thanks!),
and I have just uploaded again with the above issues fixed.
Unless there are any objections, after it has migrated to testing I
will then merge these 2 MRs:

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/merge_requests/17 https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/46

Currently the menu item number in the MR is:

7400 grub-installer
7400 systemd-boot-installer
7700 nobootloader

If that doesn't work and should be changed, please let me know what to
change it to and I'll do so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 23:58, Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 16:17, Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 16:11, Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org> wrote:

Hi,

Am 3. Juni 2024 11:23:57 MESZ schrieb Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>: >On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 at 02:47, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:

Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> (2024-06-03):

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/merge_requests/17

TIL: builscript.

ACK on the .mrconfig part, but I think this misses an addition to
packages/po/packages_list (to be confirmed with Holger Wansing). Might >> be best to get rid of the fuzzy parts still mentioning nobootloader
beforehand though. Just something that needs taken care of at some
point.

Ah missed that packages_list - fixed in the latest push

As kibi mentioned, the left-overs from nobootloader should be cleaned up in
the templates file, so
s/nobootloader/systemd-boot-installer/

Whoops, forgot to fixup that file, thanks

and according to <https://d-i.debian.org/doc/i18n-guide/ch01s04.html#sublevels>
I would prefer the new message to be sublevel 3, so
s/# :sl1:/# :sl3:/

before pushing this one.

Otherwise fine I think

Sounds good, will push to main shortly and upload as soon as the
package has cleared NEW. Thanks for the reviews.

The new source package has been accepted by the FTP team (thanks!),
and I have just uploaded again with the above issues fixed.
Unless there are any objections, after it has migrated to testing I
will then merge these 2 MRs:

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/d-i/-/merge_requests/17 https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/46

Currently the menu item number in the MR is:

7400 grub-installer
7400 systemd-boot-installer
7700 nobootloader

If that doesn't work and should be changed, please let me know what to
change it to and I'll do so.

The package has migrated to testing and I have merged those 2 MRs. Is
an upload of debian-installer needed for it to show up in the weekly
builds?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> (2024-06-28):

The package has migrated to testing and I have merged those 2 MRs. Is
an upload of debian-installer needed for it to show up in the weekly
builds?

Having the branch merged into master is all you need, since that's what
gets built daily.


Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmZ+fzoACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSBzdw/+O86UsHna7CK5tsNYCjOSslVZTQX/mzKpuy7ejmbC8W90GpsQs2l8iLVy UvEniQhOpGdbuT1Tj0RZZicnp9elqbHAd84e2S763NmrrgG4vSuU7I49cXJ8GeNU eLvBeL3Lv1OageUnm385zwKHNkXcXSn0tNjD2g8yt+wpOWD4AUb8p+sWM/oOPTl/ v1BjeZzphnbP7Z2O/BwBeOQmD2eIrPl/yd3pSyGeTB1JW4jFEnlQiNU8spS4N5g8 lylz72UZ2VZU9UHU3y7DXQF4dTkw3oJcEcjRfqrxPAm4x4nCrGmrfktQ3Gv/UWDd ciaphB0t1q9ls/HldB/tomFwcOZKDv/EMg0yxRJAhMrKRkpsKfy/5r+u8GZY91BP sPxBkYwed6QkDj63T7on5dUJgAk2igk9qpBBj4CUJD4KIN8IWziO5ulqeh+30hrn rwR8KNkMsE/7Zb3iHm+PDSbrzph4f0YV5bJQOi5JomGbd/QUwk2WFRvYtTDtZXEj jvyGYE9K/eH/E8a3rvanP/lmGs+/v1F8YESEpwNcJbWzvvYCutPZtVemyphJnlDG rh0imdmumWIoKOXCkMNbhY4DXk3tQmjjYe8MEsoFllH142AA62GmaLhVKJTprUQc DERU1I8TuxSIiivw5c8yFyPzmZZmU5dTDjHM/A+7fnNQN7RM9aE=
=PvUo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
*

Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> (2024-06-28):

That's great, thank you

Having just checked the MR (for the src:debian-installer package),
that's only about some devel-oriented doc anyway. What matters is most
likely what udebs are available in the repository, and their metadata:

$ apt-cache show systemd-boot-installer|grep Menu
Installer-Menu-Item: 7400


Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmZ+gksACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSAGfw/+OoH60Lm+n+WtNtbq7mGQ1JCDrStOX8jaSTHq1VzvcI6Gd4TswlEpsxOD 7zcmKfl7fMQG+3bvwg+GgRHjmaA1I87deC/4IladPt1Z6drjmTmhc2RTpM1gb3Fw xsMuoc4dgu98BZNWz0xFfLGgbTHRi3GLD2mgyJPKKiFyP+pzALolbaJKEuXsQtEj nAXpRM+eJdpuN6YK+p55+aYXB1l/Vn+C8dXR9FVQirl4P5q3t6f6qhPEneCzcTfW PUrMhjkaSJkGE7i/pCtzku1twj9/7JmOMt3Vel47E+JwrwsJHtA6DSU+yYiVGrh5 TlK1ykjzcGYf8P7vbjAmMj9XfvohJoPFKFg3WhR/rbBOPlqAsnRjmZMmx3OVixLt PHA4bZxMfDNwsAHax1+HSwKWmO3fF41JPBzwUtLi+pvVXgIImDTUBgaOXfavZ5UY Fr3GxlwjbW3bDO8JmpIHGJuIgRCE8NrTI+GCTU9m6ilYv+CnVOVK+jDo1bU67UeH NJ5cstKuhahuCwoSIfcsbxGgUQ8s/GZbOMFZWy+oKTYY6ei9F7ciMuy/GU3dPQa0 NE+5AH0FpF9cp6tmpjgaYy+5fgITlMpEvbyjQwciwxa9c8xt7TeCYYuoHdyh3Z6B mobsBAKdIqyAuUOK40BzNTdJT7OrVMaeLc57a/VbglLkUuDfNTY=
=qhrq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
*

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 10:15, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:

Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> (2024-06-28):

The package has migrated to testing and I have merged those 2 MRs. Is
an upload of debian-installer needed for it to show up in the weekly builds?

Having the branch merged into master is all you need, since that's what
gets built daily.

That's great, thank you

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)