On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Cool so then we use grubby for these other cases and use the grub2 >> stuff for the grub2 case which covers the majority of installs and >> lets us use btrfs for /boot. Then as new features are added to grub2 >> for btrfs we don't have to worry about some other package being >> updated, we just automatically get them when we update the package. >> I'll take a look at what needs to be done when I get back from >> vacation. Thanks, > > Using grub2-mkconfig instead of grubby on x86 was suggested and > rejected primarily on the basis that grub-mkconfig discards the > existing grub.cfg, which can contain user add/modified entries, and > generates a completely new one. Ergo, grubby and GRUB upstreams > fundamentally disagree on the fairly basic principle of whether the > grub.cfg should be modifiable outside of GRUB tools or regenerated > from scratch each time a kernel version or boot parameter change > happens. > > And that's why Gene Czarcinski wrote patches for grubby, and AdamW did > a lot of testing of it. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094489 > > This is the most recent grubby patch > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=907052 > > > I don't know if the grubby failure to fix missing initrd lines > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200539 > > is related to the overall grubby failure to understand Btrfs > subvolumes (that Gene's patch addresses) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198 > Seems like it's easier to just ditch grubby than patch it, if it takes years to merge patches to provide simple functionality that other distro's already have then we just need to drop it and go with some other solution. Thanks, Josef -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
