On Dec 6, 2012, at 3:02 PM, "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 03:34:23PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >> The grub2 package obsoletes grub, so there's no way to actually _use_ the >> older package, but it's still in the tree. Is there a reason? > > Yes, virtualization. > > I actually thought grub had been removed, so I removed the dependency > on it in libguestfs. However libguestfs certainly *could* use grub, > if it was available. There's some heated discussion of this here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737261#c10 > > and also in the archives of the current mailing list. Why is a boot manager needed for a virtualized guest? It seems like all you need is to point to a virtual disk (or current or past snapshot) and go directly to loading the kernel. If I could stuff < 1024 bytes of boot loader into ext4's two boot sectors, that seems ways easier than dealing with grub. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-December/174786.html And if there's a use case for UEFI VM's, why not use EFISTUB instead of grub? Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
