On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:58 AM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:22 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. > > That is not the only issue. > If grub itself gets updated and you run grub2-mkconfig the generated > config file might cause issues with the grub that is actually > installed on disk (we do not reinstall grub on updates). Somehow Debian and Ubuntu appear to handle this just fine using update-grub. It's a much more pleasant experience than grubby IMO. --Andy -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
