On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:27 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: >>> 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. No, we're suggesting that this probably should already be fixed in grubby, seeing as there are patches to fix the problem. However, it's not fixed, so now what? What's the alternative? The grub2-mkconfig replacement of grubby is perhaps being used to put a fine point on those questions. What I keep hearing are things like "Btrfs isn't ready" and "/boot isn't supported on Btrfs yet" and that openSUSE gets to do things like safe upgrades with snapshots rollbacks already for 6 months now because they have people doing Btrfs work. Well, we have someone who did some Btrfs work on grubby, and several someones who tested it, and that one thing has no forward progress. So the reality is, Fedora isn't ready for Btrfs. Not the other way around. > 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". Chances are it wold work, since GRUB 2.00 shipped the configuration file format has been stable. GRUB 2.00 core.img will boot a GRUB 2.02beta produced grub.cfg. No new world order here, you can relax. I think it'd be difficult to make the Linux bootloading experience worse than it is today, even by wiping the slate clean, but there are all sorts of (really shitty) practical reasons why that's not going to happen overnight. -- Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
