Re: [PATCH] scripts:prune-kernel:remove old kernels and modules dir from system

[Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6669 bytes --]

On 10:58 Fri 15 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:14 PM Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16:25 Sat 09 Nov 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> >On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:39 AM Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@gmail.com> 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 #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]