On 12/8/18 7:45 AM, mar77i via arch-general wrote:
> For the kernel we run mkinitcpio. So there shouldn't be a real reason
> why we shouldn't run grub-mkconfig >/${main_grub_dir}/grub.cfg for
> grub. That being said, the path is /boot/grub.cfg for me, so I'm not
> sure how we'd get the installfile to figure out where to output its
> output.
As you have just pointed out, there is no way to possibly know where a
user's grub.cfg is, or even whether they have one rather than using some
external boot disk, or using the grub package exclusively to modify the
grub.efi on some externally mounted system, or or or or.
> One key difference is that the output of mkinitcpio are binary files,
> whereas grub.cfg is a text file, and maybe operators would like to
> modify that file after it's generated? So one could make a case that
> the install file should in fact keep its hands off grub.cfg
> entirely.
Well, yes. In fact, I consider the mere existence of the grub-mkconfig
command to be a harsh sin. :p
I would fork the grub package and roll my own if it were to erase my
lovingly handwritten grub.cfg with some autogenerated nonsense that all
too often doesn't even work. I'd also submit an annoyed bug report...
...
It boggles my mind that a distribution that prides itself on:
- DIY,
- KISS,
- understanding how things work, and
- the avoidance of crutch-like tools meant to abstract into nonexistence
the job of maintaining your system
still discourages all these things with respect to the grub bootloader.
I am in the gradual process of hopefully fixing all this via rewriting
the wiki page for grub. My current progress towards this end can be seen
at https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Eschwartz/Grub#Configuration
--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
