June 2009 - openSUSE Features - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[openFATE 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

Feature changed by: Stanislav Visnovsky (visnov) Feature #305634, revision 121 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Candidate Priority Requester: Mandatory Projectmanager: Mandatory Info Provider: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Relations: + - Fedora Upgrade Instructions (feature/id: + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq) + - Debian Upgrade How-to (feature/id: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.ht…) - Wiki page for implementation (url: http://en.opensuse.org/Upgrade/11.2) Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? #8: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-17 12:43:42) (reply to #7) The distupgrade feature differs from changing source list and doing upgrade, so some utility process could be started. They may require some documented procedure to be followed, for "tough" changes. But ABI change, how long since ELF/glibc was introduced? C++ ABI ought not be relevant for upgrade process, they are "just" applications and libaries to be updated. Failure handling - you are told to back up your system first, it is "best effort" not guaranteed. The less you have installed the more likely it is to succeed. Debian offer choice of kernels, this may "punt" the problem to a user controlled install and select from GRUB menu. Debian have apt-cache possibility, to create central pool of packages, to decrease liklihood of network troubles, as well as huge number CD and DVD iso's. #9: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-01-17 15:24:35) (reply to #8) The glibc internal ABI changes frequently. Means, running applications will continue to use the old glibc with the old ABI, but installed are already the new plugins => running applications can crash. #12: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:36:30) (reply to #9) But your upgrade tools are buggy if they are built to rely on "plugins". If you try to dist upgrade a live system within GUI, with all software running, and no breakage, you aim impossibly high. The point is, Debian have had very positive user comments for years about this feature, despite there being many caveats and no guarantee of success. #13: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:42:55) (reply to #12) That wasn't clear. The upgrade tools are built so they won't suffer from changes. It is reasonable to ask user to not be running uncessary applications during a dist upgrade. #16: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:19:55) (reply to #12) Thorsten is talking about general applications. Not plugins. #10: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-01-20 03:36:38) (reply to #8) ABI is important during the upgrade process, I have seen applications crashing if you upgrade running a desktop enviroment, however we need to worry more about other stuff first IMHO. #11: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-01-29 16:51:48) I think the "Debian" part of the title is missleading if what we want is just to support dup officially. I would like to see a list from some "Debian expert" on how to Debian handles the issues Klaus described above. Appart of the network failure (included in another feature: commit) I ignore (and did not experience during my old Debian times) if Debian does anything special on dist- upgrade which give them the honour to name this feature "Debian like". Otherwise this feature should be closed as "done", (or just waiting for the commit refactoring). Federico, as you named the feature "Debian-like", It would be helpful to know, appart of the download-first feature, what are you missing from Debian so we can reach that point. #14: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-31 15:54:26) (reply to #11) Technically you may be right, but that does not solve the perceived problem for end users who want a very well tested, and documented upgrade path. 11.1 shipped with release notes without solutions for problems folk hit (eg) PAM stuff). #15: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:22:12) (reply to #14) Exactly, but if we don't know what specific problems are we hitting during distupgrade the feature has no real work and specific problems can be tracked as bugs. FATE is not a place for "make this better" without concrete requirements or "make an unfalible distupgrade". If requester, prjmgr, or pm expects anything to be done in the area, we need at least: * A list of problems we hit during dist upgrade (I am aware of one specific, which is download-install sequence if network goes down) * The scope. As you mention, asking to close every application (or service) is not much to ask. Therefore the scope has to be set, because if the scope is "distupgrade and glbc upgrade while oracle process hospital monitoring equipment transactions" then this is a very expensive feature. #17: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 10:21:02) (reply to #14) btw, can you describe in technical detail the pam upgrade problem so we can document it? #18: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) (2009-02-02 10:26:58) (reply to #17) Yes, the PAM maintainers would like to know more details, too. #19: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 13:45:04) (reply to #18) There were a number of different forum poster's hitting it, just after 11.1 released (I think due to zypper dup not YaST upgrade and therefore unreported to BugZilla). It is not something I had, because I did fresh installs. Interestingly though I have used Debian less, I have done several dist-upgrade's, simply because it is expected to work well. So it is a mistake to focus on specific tech issues alone. This problem is also about expectations and user perceptions. Announcing "support" for dist upgrade and appealing for test, so work rounds can be found, for release notes at time matters to. #21: Cristian Rodríguez (elvigia) (2009-02-02 15:29:32) (reply to #19) as you failed to elaborate on the problem, I will.. Some people end with broken /etc/pam.d/login they have the following line session required pam_resmgr.so but that module is gone, and rpm upgrade does not remove that line (probably because that file has been modified) #24: JP Rosevear (jproseve) (2009-02-02 10:15:19) (reply to #21) Isn't that simply a packaging problem? #25: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-02-02 19:42:45) (reply to #24) In this case, it looks like a packaging problem, indeed. However, we had more complicated upgrade tasks in the past, like dropping devs.rpm and running udev instead. See Removing devs.rpm (http://en.opensuse.org/Software_Management/Upgrade/Devs_Rpm) for a discussion of the problem. #30: Peter Poeml (poeml) (2009-03-10 15:31:10) (reply to #25) Interesting discussion about that particular issue, but simple to solve. What works is keeping devs.rpm, and/or simply rpm -e --justdb it. (It's enough to do so later.) The more complicated issues in the past where a case where the kernel changed its major version, and some networking applications could not start with the (still running) old kernel. Didn't prevent an online upgrade over the network though, and applications could keep running. When skipping several openSUSE versions, and differences have accumulated, in can happen that an upgrade in one step is not possible. It's not possible to upgrade from 9.0 to 10.1 without first updating to 9.1, due to the kernel. These issues are quickly found by experimentation though. Other than that, the most hurting issue during remote upgrades is the difficulty to ensure persistent device naming for NICs, because that is reimplemented / changed with each openSUSE version, the upgrade procedure is not well documented, and funny surprises are the rule, and it often simply doesn't work. Other small hurdles are the increasing modularization of kernel, which can lead to lack of support for chipsets and storage in the initrd, package split-offs (mingetty) that lead to lack of essential components after the upgrade. It pays to make sure that all packages are installed which are in the "minimal" patter of that openSUSE version. And the required but disappeared PAM module locked us out once also... A word to all the non-believers who think that upgrades don't work: I have upgraded dozens of systems remotely during the last decade. All my productive systems are repeatedly upgraded that way since day one. Unfortunately, the tools we have didn't help with this. Apart from using rpm, I started doing this with yum a few years ago (if it works, metadata is available, falling back to rpm if needed). Last year I documented some steps: http://poeml.de/~poeml/10.1-11.0-update/update-11.0.howto. With today's conveniency of virtualization at hand, I actually did an upgrade by experiment with a VM first, to minimize the risk, and documented all the steps. Since I had to upgrade several 10.1 machines, this seemed like a good idea to reduce the risk and save brain energy. The notes from it are a good outcome, too. #26: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-02-02 19:43:24) (reply to #21) Whats the bug number for this problem ? #20: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-02-02 14:48:34) On Scope, here are the Release Notes for Lenny - http://www.uk.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ 4.1.4 - Prepare a safe environment for the upgrade - text mode or via ssh login, Article on how to go from Etch to Lenny - http://www.debianadmin.com/howto-upgrade-from-debian-etch-40-to-lenny-50.ht… #27: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-02-04 15:32:01) (reply to #20) this is very helpful, we should look at the bumps that Debian hits while doing this. On a separate note, just tried to "yum upgrade" frlom RHEL 5.2 to RHEL 5.3, and it went without a hitch. There may be something to be gathered from Fedora as well here. #22: Manuel Trujillo (toomany) (2009-02-02 15:44:44) I think this is a really helpful characteristic, because a lot of people like me, use openSUSE as server, and is a true hell to upgrade servers in any datacenter, at kilometers off distance. I hope this feature will be a reallity in the next 11.2. #23: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2009-02-02 15:46:27) (reply to #22) Please, if you just want to express your favorites, use the voting feature. Comments is for discussion around solving the problem itself. #28: Javier Llorente (javierllorente) (2009-03-10 14:08:21) Just a few comments... A few weeks ago, I upgraded one server from 11.0 to 11.1 via ssh using zypper dup. zypper and its related libraries have to be upgraded first in order to avoid problems, especially if the upgrade process is interrupted. Another issue besides the order of the upgrade, would be restarting daemons and dealing with new .conf. Maybe we could check if it has been edited, if not, then automerge it. Some stuff could malfunction due to old config files. We could also have a manual merge option. Another thing... wouldn't it be better to download all the packages at once and install them afterwards instead of downloading/installing package by package? On a side note, I want to say that my upgrade went smoothly (rcpbind wasn't installed but I consider that a small issue). zypper has been improved a lot. It would be great if zypper dup was officially supported as another upgrade method. #29: Peter Poeml (poeml) (2009-03-10 14:35:19) (reply to #28) Regarding config merge on update, I have played with two things. First, the yum plugin called yum-merge-conf, which allows for interactive merging of config files during the upgrade. Works and gets the job done, and could be done in zypper as well, however from my own experience I have to say that it protracts the update more than I sometimes like, and I typically want to do this job in a separate step (after the packages are updated). not protract the update for merging all files. So I rather use another approach, which is a script called rpmresolve (https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?file=rpmresolve&package=server… 3Apoeml), which works in a similar way, based on presence of rpmsave/rpmnew files. It opens vim in diff mode, lets you merge and asks you which version you want to keep. Works well for me since years, it just might require refinement of some things of the implementation in a more generic way (e.g. calling $EDITOR with different option than - d). -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305634

1 0

[openFATE 305301] Central Regulatory Domain Agent (for 802.11)
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

Feature changed by: Christian Zoz (zoz) Feature #305301, revision 17 Title: Central Regulatory Domain Agent (for 802.11) openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Important - Requested by: Helmut Schaa (hschaa) + Requested by: Vladimir Botka (vbotka) Description: The regulatroy domain handling for wireless cards was done by each driver seperately before mac80211/cfg80211. cfg80211 is used to unify the handling of regulatory domains for wireless devices. However cfg80211 depends on the user space configuring the regulatory domain. A user space daemon is currently developed (see [1]). It basically provides the allowed channels for all known regulatory domains. Additionally it would be nice to allow the configuration of the regulatory domain from the Yast network module. [1] http://wireless.kernel.org/en/developers/Regulatory/CRDA Partly based on bnc#392853 Discussion: #1: Helmut Schaa (hschaa) (2009-02-03 12:04:57) I've already packaged crda and wireless-regdb in my buildservice project home:hschaa:CRDA. #2: Helmut Schaa (hschaa) (2009-02-09 11:37:20) What we additionally need for this feature is some integration with Yast or NetworkManager such that the user is able to set the regulatory domain (maybe based on the selected time zone). A command line tool for setting the domain is already available (iw) but needs to be updated. #3: Helmut Schaa (hschaa) (2009-02-09 16:09:28) (reply to #2) Just submitted an update for Factory. #4: Helmut Schaa (hschaa) (2009-02-10 10:59:40) (reply to #2) wpa_supplicant 0.6.7 already has support for setting the regulatory domain. We'll get that with the next version update. #5: Helmut Schaa (hschaa) (2009-02-10 13:40:25) (reply to #2) iw, crda and wireless-regdb are part of factory now #6: Kshitij Kulshreshtha (polyconvex) (2009-03-25 11:53:33) Sometimes on a short visit abroad a user might not bother to update their timezone information on their laptop but still want to use a wireless network. In this case setting the regulatory domain based on timezone is not the right thing to do. Why not let the networkmanager applet ask the user himself to provide the country as a part of the dialog to setup the network? (A map similar to the yast timezone selector built into KNetworkManager?) #7: Marius Tomaschewski (mtomaschewski) (2009-06-08 11:27:49) We've already another enhancement bugs for sysconfig/wireless... so let's just add it for 11.2. Helmut, let's speak in the next days about the requirements on the sysconfig side (I guess it is just one optional variable) and add this together with the another enhancements. Michal (yast2 network) requires the sysconfig support to implement it on the yast2 side. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305301

1 0

[openFATE 304937] Wireless dynamic WEP connection with 802.1x authentication in Yast/sysconfig
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

Feature changed by: Christian Zoz (zoz) Feature #304937, revision 14 Title: Wireless dynamic WEP connection with 802.1x authentication in Yast/sysconfig openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky (visnov) reject date: 2008-07-29 15:43:08 reject reason: This cannot be done in time for openSUSE 11.1. Priority Requester: Important openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Desirable - Requested by: Helmut Schaa (hschaa) + Requested by: Vladimir Botka (vbotka) Description: Yast/sysconfig does already support WPA-EAP wireless connections but is missing support for dynamic WEP connections using 802.1x authentication. wpa_supplicant is able to start such a connection with a network block which uses key_mgmt=IEEE8021X instead of key_mgmt=WPA- EAP. Example: network={ ssid=xxx key_mgmt=IEEE8021X eap=TTLS identity=xxx password=xxx ... } Based on bug #380671 comment #16 and #19. Discussion: #2: Helmut Schaa (hschaa) (2008-07-09 13:34:35) (reply to #1) This request is about dynamic WEP, not static WEP keys (which is already supported). The 802.1x authentication is used to derive dynamic WEP keys repeatedly. It is much more secure then plain static WEP (although not as secure as WPA of course) and still widely used. #3: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2009-04-16 14:53:06) looking for community volunteers -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/304937

1 0

[openFATE 306460] Open Feature Filing to Non-Members
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

Feature added by: Stephan Binner (Beineri) Feature #306460, revision 1, last change by Title: Open Feature Filing to Non-Members openFATE: Unconfirmed Priority Requester: Mandatory Requested by: Stephan Binner (beineri) Description: During Community Week a regular complaint was that non-members are currently not allowed to file new entries to openFATE but can only comment/vote. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/306460

1 9

[openFate 305727] rpmbuild build should warn about possibly by mistake %excluded files
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 29 Jun '09

29 Jun '09

Feature added by: Stephan Binner (Beineri) Feature #305727, revision 1, last change by Title: rpmbuild build should warn about possibly by mistake %excluded files openSUSE-11.2: New Priority Requester: Desirable Requested by: Stephan Binner (beineri) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: If one works with %exclude macros in %files sections, esp with several sub-packages and wildcards in the %exclude statements, then it can easily happen that files installed to the RPM_BUILD_ROOT do not get packaged into a package at all. This case happens currently completely silent. rpmbuild should warn when an installed file gets only referenced by an %exclude statement but nowhere else. An option might be to make this warning a build error and to have a policy to allow installed files to be excluded from packages by well visible "rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/foo" calls within the .spec only. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=305727

1 3

[openFATE 306584] Allow to file features against Product Line
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 29 Jun '09

29 Jun '09

Feature added by: Klaas Freitag (kfreitag) Feature #306584, revision 1 Title: Allow to file features against Product Line Requested by: Klaas Freitag (kfreitag) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: Users sometimes are not really able to decide against which product version a feature should be filed. It would be handy to allow them to file against the product *line* and let experts later assign the correct product and version. That requires a considerable effort to implement that in Fate and needs additional process steps to make sure that the product line features are getting handled. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: Posting of features would be more easy for customer and community who might be unsure which entire product and version they should pick. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/306584

1 2

[openFATE 305317] Default to hidden bootloader menu
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 28 Jun '09

28 Jun '09

Feature changed by: Christoph Thiel (cthiel1) Feature #305317, revision 16 Title: Default to hidden bootloader menu openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Desirable Projectmanager: Desirable + Info Provider: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) Requested by: Jiri Srain (jsrain) Description: As long as there is no other operating system present (SUSE is the only system), it makes sense to default to hidden bootloader menu (and booting directly). References: http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub.html#Hidden-menu-interface https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425717 Discussion: #1: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2009-04-16 10:34:48) I like that idea. I guess it's a tiny change for bootloader, but has possibly some docu impact. #2: Stanislav Visnovsky (visnov) (2009-05-28 16:45:13) How should it behave with option to keep kernels from updates (libzypp option)? What about failsafe? #3: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2009-06-01 11:21:11) From the GRUB documentation: When your terminal is dumb or you request GRUB to hide the menu interface explicitly with the command `hiddenmenu' (*note hiddenmenu::), GRUB doesn't show the menu interface (*note Menu interface::) and automatically boots the default entry, unless interrupted by pressing ESC. When you interrupt the timeout and your terminal is dumb, GRUB falls back to the command-line interface (*note Command-line interface::). This sounds to me like this GRUB feature is intended for different purpose, and the use case described here does not make much sense (unlike lowering the time-out to e.g. 1 second). Torsten, what is your view? According to the documentation, GRUB allows to display the boot menu via pushing the Escape button. #4: T. J. Brumfield (enderandrew) (2009-06-13 03:31:06) This option would only be utilized when no other OS is present, and you can still get back to the menu with Esc. This isn't that much different than needing F8 for the boot menu for Windows. It would speed up boot times. How is that a bad thing? #5: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) (2009-06-18 23:53:45) Does not Fedora do something similar? + #6: Christoph Thiel (cthiel1) (2009-06-28 10:00:44) (reply to #5) + I haven't looked at how Fedora handles this. Jan, would you be able to + dig into what Fedora does technically? This would be very much + appreciated! -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305317

1 0

[openFATE 306573] automated update procedure from SLES10 to SLES11 based on answer files
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

Feature added by: Gábor Nyers (gnyers) Feature #306573, revision 1 Title: automated update procedure from SLES10 to SLES11 based on answer files Requested by: Gábor Nyers (gnyers) Description: The update procedure from SLES10 to SLES11 should be capable of accepting an answer file for the entire update procedure. This is essential for customers running a large SAP operation, or other business critical applications for that matter. The purpose of this feature is to save the IT staff's time, by not requiring for someone to sit there and interactively type in configuration data and click through the update wizard. The current practice, meaning the update procedure from SLES9 -> SLES10, requires manual interaction with the update procedure, which according to a large SLES/SAP customer's case takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. Since large sites can have hundreds of individual servers, the upgrade of the entire infrastructure has major impact on resources and planning. By having the update procedure to accept answers not only from keyboard, but also e.g. from a file, large sites can significantly cut back on costs in case of updating to a major new release. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/306573

1 0

[openFATE 305403] Bootloader beep configuration
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

Feature changed by: Steffen Winterfeldt (snwint) Feature #305403, revision 13 Title: Bootloader beep configuration openSUSE-11.2: Candidate Priority Requester: Desirable Projectmanager: Desirable Requested by: Jiri Srain (jsrain) Description: Allow to configure whether the acoustic signal should be used for installed bootloader. Acoustic signal is valuable for visually impaired people, while it may be disturbing e.g. in libraries. Discussion: #1: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2008-11-12 15:58:43) Default can be set depending on whether braille display was found or whether text-to-speech in isolinux was used. #2: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) (2008-11-12 17:15:07) Is this feature meant as 'allow atuomatic setting of'? The beep is afaik already configurable to be 'off'. If not, this would be a bug. #3: Stefan Seyfried (seife) (2008-11-12 18:09:40) Please reject this feature. This is seriously overengineered. The beep now defaults to off int the installed system. If somebody wants to enable it, he can do so with gfxboot --change-config "boot::beep=1" Marco only needs to document that for his customers and everything is fine. Please, no YaST module for that. #4: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2008-11-13 09:39:44) (reply to #3) It's not about a new module, just about a check box in the bootloader configuration. #5: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2009-06-01 11:38:11) (reply to #4) Jozo, please, find a reasonable location for the check box. #6: Jozef Uhliarik (juhliarik) (2009-06-25 10:37:14) Steffen how can I obtain info about status of "beep" from gfxboot? I know how to switch on/off option but I need also status. Please let me know. + #7: Steffen Winterfeldt (snwint) (2009-06-25 11:40:48) (reply to #6) + You can't. If you have an INF file parser, you can run 'gfxboot --show- + config' and get the value from there. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305403

1 0

[openFATE 305403] Bootloader beep configuration
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

Feature changed by: Jozef Uhliarik (juhliarik) Feature #305403, revision 12 Title: Bootloader beep configuration openSUSE-11.2: Candidate Priority Requester: Desirable Projectmanager: Desirable Requested by: Jiri Srain (jsrain) Description: Allow to configure whether the acoustic signal should be used for installed bootloader. Acoustic signal is valuable for visually impaired people, while it may be disturbing e.g. in libraries. Discussion: #1: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2008-11-12 15:58:43) Default can be set depending on whether braille display was found or whether text-to-speech in isolinux was used. #2: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) (2008-11-12 17:15:07) Is this feature meant as 'allow atuomatic setting of'? The beep is afaik already configurable to be 'off'. If not, this would be a bug. #3: Stefan Seyfried (seife) (2008-11-12 18:09:40) Please reject this feature. This is seriously overengineered. The beep now defaults to off int the installed system. If somebody wants to enable it, he can do so with gfxboot --change-config "boot::beep=1" Marco only needs to document that for his customers and everything is fine. Please, no YaST module for that. #4: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2008-11-13 09:39:44) (reply to #3) It's not about a new module, just about a check box in the bootloader configuration. #5: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2009-06-01 11:38:11) (reply to #4) Jozo, please, find a reasonable location for the check box. + #6: Jozef Uhliarik (juhliarik) (2009-06-25 10:37:14) + Steffen how can I obtain info about status of "beep" from gfxboot? I + know how to switch on/off option but I need also status. Please let me + know. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/305403

1 0