On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:27 PM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:51 PM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:58 AM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> 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). >>>> >>>> On UEFI it is. >>> >>> OK, so what we do with old BIOS machines or ones for whatever reason using CSM? >> >> Like you said. The grub package might get updated, but the installed >> bootloader (the core.img) remains the same. On UEFI, a new grub2-efi >> package means the grubx64.efi in EFI/fedora is replaced. >> >>> Just use grubby for those? >> >> I'm not quite following the question. Grubby always gets used in any >> case. And the same Btrfs subvolume bug happens on either UEFI or BIOS. > > You (and Josef) seem to be proposing to switch to grub2-mkconfig > instead of grubby. > I am just pointed one one case where this doesn't work hence the > question how this case is supposed to be handled in your "new world > order". This is what I wanted to hear, reasons why we use grubby. So it seems like we can't just use the grub utilities and need something else, so perhaps the something else should be something we can actually get patches into? Like whatever debian and suse use? Thanks, Josef -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
