On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:02 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Peter Jones wrote: >> >> > We definitely want to keep using grubby instead of running grub2-mkconfig and >> > clobbering whatever's in your config file every time. >> >> *shrug* I think grubby makes for an increasingly cluttered grub.cfg. >> With the latest behavior I'm seeing with 2.00~beta2's grub2-mkconfig, >> it cleans up after itself nicely. The grub.cfg pretty clearly >> indicates it can be clobbered, by design. > > yeah, I have to admit I get the feeling we're kind of swimming against > the tide, now. I'm not sure it would be so terrible to just decide to go > with the upstream design, run grub2-mkconfig any time grub2.cfg needs > updating, and tell people to do customization in the /etc/grub.d stuff > as upstream intends. > > The whole point of going with grub2 was to get closer to upstream and > reduce our maintenance burden, right? grubby feels like a substantial > chunk of maintenance burden too. grubby wraps multiple bootloader configurations. grub, grub2, yaboot, and possibly one other. While it might be reasonable for it to just run grub2-mkconfig if it detects grub2 installed, it's still needed for the other bootloaders that are used in Fedora. Otherwise the kernel spec would need to handle all of this directly instead of calling grubby. That sounds like a nightmare. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
