On 09/21/2011 03:39 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 18:48 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 06:30:58PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 20:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>> The grub package (as provided in Fedora) is not designed for that. This
>>>> would be a much easier discussion to have if you stopped describing
>>>> things that are manifestly true as "not true". And while it is the case
>>>> that grub *is* binary compatible between every version we've ever
>>>> released, it is *not* guaranteed that that remains true, or even that
>>>> it's true between us and any distribution that may be installed in a
>>>> guest.
>>>
>>> If libguestfs had code to detect that the guest version was incompatible
>>> and failed gracefully with a nice explanation for the user, then there's
>>> no problem right?
>>
>> To be reliable you'd need to support disassembling the binaries
>> installed and working out what the arguments are meant to look like.
>> This doesn't seem like a great way to spend time.
>
> Not your problem how libguestfs authors spend their time.
>
> Nor whether they actually do this or choose to just warn their users
> about potential incompatibility.
>
>> Remember that the incompatibility isn't between libguestfs and the
>> guest, it's between the host grub and the guest grub. Both of those
>> can change without libguestfs's knowledge.
>
> Sounds like we need a 'Conflicts: libguestfs' in both grub and grub2
> then?
Yes, but this will hardly help the situation, which right now is that the
distro pulls in grub 2, because that's what we've collectively chosen to do,
and libguestfs pulls in grub on the host, even though it isn't really using
it there. So effectively your solution is to keep the problem we've got
right now.
--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
